Last week cuts in FE College budgets were said to be threatening key vocational training programmes – but there was a report that, at Salisbury College the “cuts” in courses included the closure of a course for adults with severe learning difficulties. It transpired, however, that most of the individuals has been on the programme for some time, - up to 12 years in some cases. For those of us who have been around for a while, we recognise that this “problem” has happened again and again.
Last week cuts in FE College budgets were said to be threatening key vocational training programmes – but there was a report that, at Salisbury College the “cuts” in courses included the closure of a course for adults with severe learning difficulties. It transpired, however, that most of the individuals has been on the programme for some time, - up to 12 years in some cases. For those of us who have been around for a while, we recognise that this “problem” has happened again and again.
When the government closed Adult Training Centres used for Adults with Learning Difficulties and paying them a small “wage” for doing repetitive work for companies such as Remploy (in the 1980’s) to save money from the Social Services budget, the people so made homeless then applied for “training courses” at Colleges. The only problem was that most of the adults with learning difficulties will never leave the course to get a job, and so they returned year after year. There have been several tightening of the purse strings episodes where college managers have had to make funding priorities and decide that keeping people on courses for 12 or more years was not showing evidence of successful learning. I heard about a Principal who had the dilemma of having to choose between using a Construction workshop and staff for adults with special needs for two days, or running extra Plumbing programmes because of high levels of demand. No real contest, is there, for Vocational Training organisations.
Last week, in the Guardian, Francis Beckett reported on Salisbury College as an example of "cuts" in provision, after the college decided to close a course for adults with severe learning difficulties. It is important to understand why this has happened. Some of the individuals on the course have been with the college for 12 years without progressing. The college is, in effect, delivering day care, under the guise of learning. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) recognises that the decision to end a course of this type may, in the short term, cause distress for some individuals and their families. However, Melanie Hunt , the National Director for the LSC says that the LSC supports the difficult decisions. She is reported, in the Guardian as saying “The LSC is focused on a number of key government priorities - and provision for learners, of all ages, with learning difficulties and/or disabilities remains a priority. This could not be clearer: the government and the LSC have repeatedly stated this. Any college or provider that assumes otherwise is wrong. Meeting the learning needs of this group is not just a legal requirement for the LSC, but a chosen priority. The sector must preserve appropriate, quality programmes that have a clear pathway to learning or employment. Providers continually review their provision in the light of changing needs. As a result, some programmes will legitimately close. Change is vital in developing an FE system that is responsive to demand, injects challenge and rigour, and delivers the highest quality. This group of learners is among the most vulnerable, so it is not surprising that changes are emotive. It is easy to assume that changes in provision are always wrong. But a programme may end because the learners are not progressing, because the quality is poor or because alternative provision is available. The LSC has conducted a survey about provision for adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The survey's findings indicate that the reasons for change are sound, and reflect the local context. Provision for people with learning difficulties should challenge them, provide a sense of achievement, increase personal autonomy and deliver progression to new opportunities and experiences. To retain this group in learning simply to occupy them does not serve their interests. It will not support their integration into local communities, nor will it help them to progress to greater independence. We would not expect to keep adults without learning difficulties on programmes without challenge or purpose, so we should not expect anything different for their peers. Different expectations for people with learning difficulties reinforces their ambitions as second-class. The LSC cannot, and should not, fund programmes that are not learning-focused and are essentially day care delivered within a FE environment. However, colleges should not act unilaterally to end this type of provision.”
For those of us who have been around for a while, we recognise that this “problem” has happened again and again. When the government closed Adult Training Centres used for Adults with Learning Difficulties and paying them a small “wage” for doing repetitive work for companies such as Remploy (in the 1980’s) to save money from the Social Services budget, the people so made homeless then applied for “training courses” at Colleges. The only problem was that most of the adults with learning difficulties will never leave the course to get a job, and so they returned year after year. There have been several tightening of the purse strings episodes where college managers have had to make funding priorities and decide that keeping people on courses for 12 or more years was not showing evidence of successful learning. I heard about a Principal who had the dilemma of having to choose between using a Construction workshop and staff for adults with special needs for two days, or running extra Plumbing programmes because of high levels of demand. No real contest, is there, for Vocational Training organisations.
|