UKs Policy on Training and Development - Essay Example

?UK’s Policy on Training and Development Introduction UK has continued to under-invest on manpower training and development. Nevertheless, is the policy of the United Kingdom government on training and development fit for its purpose? UK’s Policy on Training and Development The policy of the United Kingdom on training and development is reflected in the document, Further education-new horizon: Investing in skills for sustainable development, produced by the United Kingdom Department for Business, Innovation & Skills or BIS. One important feature of the UK government policy is that “the case for state investment is strongest for young people and those with low skills” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). In particular, the focus is on “young people aged 19 up to 24” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). However, “the further education resource budget will be reduced by 25%” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). This is a very important feature of the UK government policy on training on development. UK “will progressively introduce a new loan facility , which will remove grant funding from the 2013/14 academic year, providing the capacity to sustain learner participation with government-backed fee loans for individuals aged 24 or over studying at qualifications at level 3 and above” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). BIS (2010a, p. 4) elaborated “there will be no up-front costs and the repayments made on an income-contingent basis.” In addition, “the government has made available ?129m in 2013-14 and ?398m in 2014-15 for these fee loans” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). The BIS claims, however, that while public investment will be reduced, the UK government will “free the sector from top-down targets and direction to enable a truly demand-led system to develop” (2010a, p. 4). Government will seek “greater contributions from individuals and employers who benefit most and can afford to pay” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). For 2011-12, “the total Teaching and Learning budget will be ?3.1bn, of which ?605m will be earmarked for adult apprenticeships” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). However, spending on adult apprenticeships and, relative to the previous government, “will increase by up to ?250m by the end of the SR period” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). Informal adult and community learning will be retained although they will be “reformed” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). There will also be “progression routes for those looking for a way into formal learning” (BIS 2010a, p. 4). Importantly, “there will also be help for those who are unemployed on active benefits” (BIS 2010a, p. 5). The UK government policy on training and development comes with “fundamental policy changes” (BIS 2010a, p. 5). The “Train to Gain” will be abolished (BIS 2010a, p. 5). “Funding for workplace training on SMEs will be prioritized” (BIS 2010a, p. 5). Government will more conduct consultations for other changes (BIS 2010a, p. 5). BIS (2010a, p. 5) pointed out that government will reduce bureaucracy by training providers and simplify the further education and skills landscape by abolishing central targets. For example, the BIS (2010b) document localized targets and programs for England based on BIS (2010a). The BIS (2010a, p. 5) said “colleges and training organisations will be more publicly accountable to learners, employers, and their communities.” This portion of the UK government program “will be supported by the introduction of lifelong learning accounts and by the new All Age Careers Service.” As per the claim of the BIS, the UK government training and development policy is founded on three principles (BIS 2010a, p. 1): fairness, shared responsibility, and greater freedom. According to BIS (2010, p. 1), the first principle justifies the “special attention to young people and those with basic literacy and numeracy skills.” In the second principle, citizens will be called upon to “take greater responsibility for ensuring their own skills are met” (BIS 2010a, p. 1). Lastly, the principle of “greater freedom” means “trusting people to do their job” and the “primary accountability today should be not to the Government, but to the people it serves” (BIS 2010a, p. 1). Thus, given the said description of the UK central policy on training and development, we repeat the question introduced earlier: is the policy of the United Kingdom government on training and development fit for its purpose? We analyze the issue from two perspectives: as viewed current situation and from the perspective of UK’s experience on training and development for the last several years. UK training and development policy and the current situation From the perspective of Brown et al. (2010), the current situation today emphasises that “skills are not enough” given the globalisation of knowledge. Brown et al. (2010, p. 1) argue that in addition to skills, UK labour must also be competitive and must recognize the current nature of globalisation. The world is reportedly in the second wave of globalisation (Brown et al. 2010, p. 12). In this wave, the current feature of globalisation requires that the UK must recognise that one must think beyond “national-centric perspectives,” government must be active and challenge the dominance of the supply and must create demand rather than merely respond to demand, and dislocate value chains from national contexts (Brown et al. 2010, pp. 19-29). According to Brown et al. (2010, p. 30), “Britain’s economy depends on an ability to compete within global value chains where competition know no boundaries.” In particular, according to Brown et al. (2010, p. 30), “foreign companies may create more high skilled employment than some British companies that offshore a large proportion of their high value activities.” This implies that British firms must be ready to outsource offshore as needed and must look into dominating the world value chain rather than focusing its energies solely or principally on the UK national value chain. In Brown et al.’s (2010, p. 31) estimate, “there is already evidence of an explosion in the global supply of graduate labour; an ability of some emergent economies to compete both on quality and costs; and an increasing importance of global skill webs that extends through the entire value chains in both manufacturing and services.” This implies that the UK must focus its skills training and manpower development programs on creating workers that would be organizing the global value chain, innovating or creating new products and not merely concentrating its energies on making products better and inexpensive, things that the global community has focused herself on and has done in great abundance. In sum, UK skills training must reinvent UK labour into one that is organising the world value chain rather than merely simply locating and placing herself in that value chain. Brown et al. (2008a, abstract section) articulated, “high skills are a declining source of competitive advantage, given the exponential increase in the global supply of “knowledge” workers. Brown et al. (2008a, abstract section) also pointed out that “the assumption that it would take decades for emerging economies to compete for high-end manufacturing and services, including research and development, have been rapidly undermined.” Brown et al. (2008a, abstract section) emphasised that “global competition is now based on quality and price, transforming the relationship between education, jobs, and rewards.” Brown et al. (2008a, abstract section) also emphasised that “there is enough evidence to suggest that the human capital assumption on which government policy rests is no longer “fit for purpose.” Based on the graphical data in Brown et al. (2008b, p. 4) which is captured in Figure 1 of this work, UK is not even the leader in the global race for skills. However, in the view of Brown et al. (2008a), the correct orientation for training and development or education and training is not to win based on the race for higher skills but to win based on skills and price or quality and price. Brown et al. (2008b) did not mean that UK labour have to be cheap as some of the labour and other requirements of UK can be outsourced as UK start to think in terms of global value chains rather than national value chains. Brown et al. (2008a, p. 27) asserted that outsourcing offshore leads to job losses. Figure 1. Tertiary education level aged 25-34, select countries Source: Brown et al. (2008b, p. 4) As also shown in the graphical data in Brown et al. (2008a, p. 6) which is reproduced as Figure 2 in this work, the UK is also among the laggards in expanding tertiary education and, thus, UK will be one of the losers in a skills-based competition. Figure 2. Expansion of tertiary education in select countries Source: Brown et al. (2008b, p. 6) Brown et al. (2008b) basically echoed the same point raised in Brown (2008a): given that the UK will likely not win in the immediate term in the race for competitiveness, the way forward is not to be simply competitive based skills but also to become competitive based on quality and price and outsourcing offshore can become part of UK’s competitive strategy. The Policy Action Team Report of 1999 does not tell much and simply confirm that UK’s efforts in earlier years with regard to training and development revolve on producing highly skilled labour for the UK. However, as we have pointed out the UK did not really become a leading provider of skilled labour despite several years of focus on the matter (see Figure 1 and 2 of this work). UK training and development and UK experience UK’s experience in training and development does no support the view that there wisdom in UK’s current policy on training and development. In the first place, it is clear from Figure 2 that earlier efforts to focus on skills development did lead to success. UK’s current program on training and development merely rehashed earlier programs with a twist: while the basic orientation of UK’s training and development programs remained unchanged, the current program merely reduced the budget for training. The current program will likely fail because if similar earlier programs failed to succeed based on a higher budget, there is no reason that the current program will succeed merely because the current program has a lower budget. Contradicting UK’s current plans to mobilize contributions from employer to support UK’s manpower and training development programs, Llyod (2002, p. 64) emphasised that policy has so far failed “to confront the issue of employers’ lack of investments in training.” It does not seem likely that employers will increase their support for UK training and development programs merely because budget today is lower. Lloyd (2002, p. 65) revealed out that “the UK has been consistently criticised for its low levels of workplace training and development, in particular in relation to international comparisons.” According to Lloyd (2002, p. 65), “since the early 1980s the reinforcement of the market system of vocational training has presided over the collapse of the traditional apprenticeship system, continued poor levels of managerial training and development and a lack of opportunities for low skill workers.” The points are consistent with the data reflected in Figure 2. If there was failure with a higher budget, there seems to be no reason why success could happen at higher budget. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the current UK policy on training and development is not fit for its purpose. There are two reasons. First, the policy is not fit for its purpose because the current policy merely continues an earlier program thrust at lower funding level. Second, earlier programs have failed even at a higher budget levels and there is no reason why a mere rehash of earlier programs would succeed at a lower budget level. To move forward, UK training and development must focus on training the workforce to become more innovative and at a better position to organize the value chain at the global level, tapping outsourced or offshore goods and services so UK labour will be in a better position to compete based on price and quality. References BIS (2010a) Further education-new horizon: Investing in skills for sustainable development. Strategy Document. London: United Kingdom Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. BIS (2010b) Skills for sustainable development. Strategy Document. London: United Kingdom Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Brown, P., Ashton, D., Lauder, H., & Tholen, G. (2008a) ‘Towards a high skilled, low-waged workforce? A review of global trends in education, employment and the labour market’. Monograph No. 10. Cardiff: Cardiff and Oxford Universities. Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2008b) Education, globalisation and the knowledge economy. London: Teaching and Learning Research Program, Institute of Education. Brown, P., Ashton, D., & Lauder, H. (2010) ‘Skills are not enough: The globalisation of knowledge and the future UK economy’. London: UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Lloyd, C. (2002) ‘Training and development deficiencies in ‘high skill’ sectors’. Human Resource Management Journal. 12 (2) pp. 64-81. Policy Action Team on Skills (1999) ‘Final report’. London: Policy Action Team on Skills, Social Exclusion Unit. Stevens, M. (1999) ‘Human capital theory and UK vocational training policy’. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 15 (1) pp. 16-32. Read More