WORKING TOGETHER: SUMMITSKILLS and BACH

Meeting at SummitSkills offices: Milton Keynes: 08 April 2011

_____________________________________________________________

BACH provided the agenda which was agreed with Summit Skills.

 

In attendance

Keith Marshall (Chief Executive, SummitSkills), Lindsay Gillespie (Development Director, SummitSkills), Ray Dowd (President, BACH), Paul Brown (Acting Chair, BACH), Ian Billyard (Past National Chair, BACH) and Kevin Williams (National Treasurer, BACH)

Apologies

None

1. Welcome and Introductions

Those attending introduced themselves. KM welcomed BACH to the meeting and to the SummitSkills offices.

 

2. National Skills Academies

BACH Members had raised concerns at the recent National Conference about the tight window for applying to become a National Skills Academy. Summit Skills (SS) outlined the timescale they worked with starting with the Government Approval to allow them to move to a business planning stage within the first twelve months. There would be funding for the first three years. The plan was based on a hub model allowing 18 centres. In May 2010 a series of workshops were held around the country which raised considerable interest. It was decided to encourage expressions of interest based on readiness to proceed. The invitations were sent out to all those who attended the workshops. They were asked to give an outline of the evidence SS were looking for. SS knew that it was a very tight deadline and informed those interested that this was the case. In the end they approved 14 hubs. Those unsuccessful were told to apply in round two which would commence in April 2011. SS wanted to ensure that those bidding were highly professional organisations and did not encourage applications form providers who may have encouraged the type of organisations which tell trainees that they will turn you into a plumber within two weeks.

BACH asked why SS had not turned those possessing or working towards TQS into the entry requirement for NSA. SS confirmed that they were working with their plan which had LSC approval.

BACH asked for clarity over the geographical locations which showed parts of the country without coverage whilst others appeared to have more than one SA in close proximity to each other. It was confirmed that initially Labour Market Information (LMI) was used to help decide where the greatest need was. In the next round SS would look at areas which did not have a hub and encourage tenders from those areas. In the next round there would be fewer but be given broader coverage with those in existence. When asked about the four home nations, SS confirmed that within the three years they would move towards UK coverage. SS were concerned that they did not end up with Institutions doing their own thing. The ideal was to have approved centres only. This would be supported by a data base which records everyone who goes through the Academy and if they have achieved the relevant competencies. It was not intended too use the data base as a licence to practice. If the data base was used as a licence to practice then there would have to be other routes available.

BACH asked why centres had to pay £10,000 and was this due each year. SS confirmed that the money was part of the match funding arrangements. Government had provided £3 million based on attracting match funding which would be used to help centres attract clients and for the development of work through the central Academy itself.

BACH asked about the Governance model and SS =confirmed that an interim Board had been established and were in the process of appointing a new Chief Executive and other staff including a PR specialist. The Board would be separate from SS and be required to be financially independent. Board members had to be commercially skilled. The Board would be a strategic arm and be able to drive business outcomes so that the company would be financially independent within the 3 year timescale. The Company would not them be subject to political whims thus giving greater prospect for continuity

SS confirmed that the Academy would deliver competence based qualifications to standards identified by NOS. Usually these would be QCF units.

BACH asked why SS did not recognise the qualifications staff already had rather than undertaking a new qualification. SS agreed to work with BACH and other partners to consider Accreditation of Prior Learning.

It was recognised by SS that a number of existing qualifications, currently being offered by the providers, had not been mapped and were still on the NQF. Where these were mapped to the NOS these would be recognised by the Academy until QCF based qualifications were available.

 

3. Update on Level 1, 2 and 3 curriculum developments for full time learners

SS informed BACH that Centre Manuals are due to be available for April. SS were concerned that they should have been ready in 2010. BACH pointed out that Refrigeration was so basic that it could be learnt in a 1 day conference. There was much confusion amongst BACH members who had completed the EAL/C&G as to whether they were qualified to teach or not?

SS confirmed that there had been no structured research into the concerns raised by employers that the market was flooded with people with inappropriate experience. When asked about the recent letter from Michael Gove, SS expressed concern and both the Chief Executive and Chair had written to complain. SS felt that the content of the qualifications are 8 years out of date and would do a great disservice to those young people following these programmes.

Discussion took place about the importance of work experience to ensure that those following programmes in Plumbing and Electrical work were able to gain on-site experience. BACH supported the view that it should be structured and lead to individuals gaining competences recognised by the Industry. Subject to securing funding SS may invite BACH to work with them on developing suitable experience that would lead to recognised competences. SS preference would be to work with a small group of Colleges to develop this approach.

4. Apprentices framework update

SS described how they map Apprentice numbers with the SFA. They were confident that it was based on solid information including completers, starters and on programme. The numbers in place broadly reflect the numbers needed by the industry and was fairly close to the numbers agreed in 2008. SS described the process where in excess of 25,000 employers are contacted to generate 2000 responses and asked to define their needs in terms of the numbers of Apprenticeship they plan to take on. This data is then used to plan provision. BACH informed SS that one College had asked local employers if they knew about Summit Skills and the overwhelming response was that they had not heard of the Sector Skills Council.

BACH had looked at the Web Site for information on frameworks but could not find the data. SS confirmed that the Web Site is dealt with Centrally and if the information was not on the site, this was an oversight. SS would look into the matter to ensure it was available.

 

5. Wolf review

Both BACH and SS agreed that the Wolf Report contained some useful recommendations and much would depend on how many the Government would adopt. SS had written to Alison Wolf to express concern about being SummitSkills being mentioned in the report.

6. World Skills and Skill M&E

BACH had written to 12 organisations asking if in principle they would support a collaborative approach to having a collective Construction presence at World Skills. To date BACH had not received a response from SummitSkills. SS outlined a number of areas where they were supporting World Skills including funding every entry. Latterly SS had focussed on those who could make it to gold. SS welcomed the opportunity to work with Colleges to build on current success for the future. SS was concerned about future funding and attracting sponsorship from Industry. SS was keen to find a way of continuing to support entries and planned to convene a working group after the World Skills Competitions was over. SS agreed that in principle they would support a collaborative approach, subject to the detail of the arrangements and the costs involved.

 

7. BACH Representation on SummitSkills Committees

SS outlined how BACH members were represented on specific working groups but agreed to consider if BACH could add value on any sub committees. SS would give the matter some thought.

8. Any Other Business

There was no other business.

 

9. Date of next meeting

SS welcomed the opportunity to meet with BACH recognising that some members were already actively involved at a strategic level.

 

BACH expressed appreciation for being allowed to use SS offices for a pre meeting of the BACH officers.