Evaluating the spending of £5 billion

Conclusions and recommendations

1. Despite the Department spending £5 billion between 2001 and 2007 on trying to improve the levels of literacy and numeracy, England still has an unacceptably high number of people who cannot read, write and count adequately. The Department is attempting to tackle the legacy of decades of schooling which did not equip enough young people with basic literacy and numeracy skills. In 2006–07, around 8% of pupils (51,000) left school without Level 1 (GCSE grade D–G)mathematics and 6% (39,000) without Level 1 English. These young people are likely to require remedial action later in life to address these skills deficiencies.

2. Even if the Department achieves its 2020 ambition, the nation’s skills levels will only be raised to a level currently achieved by the top 25% of OECD member countries. The Department has a new objective to help 95% of the adult population of working age to achieve functional literacy and numeracy by 2020.

3. The Department has made far less progress in strengthening numeracy skills than literacy skills and still has an enormous amount to do to raise the skills of those with poor numeracy skills to a competent level. The Department has helped no more than 1 in 10 of those with numeracy skills below the level of a good GCSE. In developing its numeracy plan, it should focus on how to encourage greater participation, and how approaches to teaching can better meet the needs of those who do not respond to traditional methods of learning.

4. Lack of up to date information on the skills of the population nationally, and by region, means that the Department cannot be sure that its programmes are equipping people with the skills that the UK economy needs to remain competitive. The Department should undertake a follow up to the 2003 Skills for Life survey, as soon as possible, in order to assess the impact of the Skills for Life programme on improving the United Kingdom’s skills base.

5. There are fewer numeracy teachers (under 6,100) than literacy teachers (over 9,300), although the Department plans to increase the number of numeracy teachers. To do so, it should adopt new approaches to recruitment, for example,targeting graduates of programmes with substantial maths content and increasing the availability of specialist training routes including distance learning.

6. Although potential learners come into contact with different public services, very few take up skills learning. This should improve in 2010 when all new benefits claimants will receive a skills assessment and those who have the need will be referred to skills coaching and training. The Department, the Learning and Skills Council and Jobcentre Plus will need to put in place clear and easily understood routes by which those eligible can access training. The Department should encourage other public services, such as health and housing, to promote training opportunities to improve basic skills for those adults with poor literacy, language or numeracy with whom they come into contact.

7. Only one in five offenders with very low levels of basic skills had enrolled on a course that would help them. This represents a major lost opportunity to help a sector of the population with substantial literacy and numeracy needs. The Prison Service should provide additional incentives to encourage more offenders to improve their basic skills and, through the Learning and Skills Council, should include more basic skills education on vocational courses and other prison activities, to make it more likely to appeal to offenders.

8. Take up of Skills for Life courses through Train to Gain, the Government’s main initiative to increase employer involvement in training, has been lower than expected. At the end of March 2008 there were 41,000 learners compared with an expected profile of 73,470. The Learning and Skills Council needs to improve the competency and capability of skills brokers through more dedicated training and support so that skills brokers are better placed to make the case to employers to secure their participation in skills training.

I have some observations/questions (in no particular order):

(1) Why are parents not mentioned at all in this document's summary? {if parents have any responsibility for their children's education, that would be then be neat and help the good folk who produced this report. Presumably the ratio of parents to children is better than that of sufficiently 'qualified' teachers to children (Point 5.)!}

(2) What does the phrase: 'those who do not respond to traditional methods of learning' mean? (Point 3.) Given the admission highlighted below (5) how traditional are we talking? Traditional as in, been failing for decades, or traditional as in, scholastic or something? If the later, haven't we been rejecting that in any case? If the former, surely that is the point of the whole report - far too many children are being deprived of the skills they need for life by the recently 'traditional' methods.

(3) Given qu.1, and the focus on teachers above, is this document (written by politicians) going to result in smaller or larger government (paid for by.....)?

(4) At what point should people take responsibility for their lives, their children's lives and their children's children's lives? Equally, within the confines of the assumptions of this paper, at what point should government leave people to take responsibility for their decisions?

(5) The admission in point 1 that: 'The Department is attempting to tackle the legacy of decades of schooling which did not equip enough young people with basic literacy and numeracy skills.' seems to be staggering. Because this is not the kind of thing that I hear politicians saying out loud.

(6) £5 billion is a lot of money. A lot of naughts. And this report is saying that is has not been spend well? So... who takes responsibility for that then?