Will Local Skills Improvement Plans make any difference?
Richard Guy considers what is needed to make LSIPs a success
Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPS) are now a requirement across England and thirty-eight Employer Representative Bodies (ERBs) have been designated by the Secretary of State for Education to develop plans by Spring 2023. This follows LSIP trailblazer reports published in eight areas in early April 2022. Updated LSIP guidance has recently been issued, including amendments to ensure that ERBs identify requirements for new education and training provision (and therefore be clear on what delivery already exists); and to confirm a slightly more prominent role for LEPs and MCAs/GLA, reflecting on the requirements for LSIPs set out in the recent Skills and Post-16 Education Act.
Providers now face multiple and overlapping requirements to demonstrate how they meet local skills needs. FE providers of all types must cooperate with ERBs in the development and subsequent review of the LSIP. FE colleges now have a new statutory duty to publish periodic reviews of how well their delivery meets local needs (alone or in conjunction with other institutions), including the steps taken to meet those needs better. Ofsted is also introducing a sub-judgement to its inspections, reviewing how well colleges and other designated providers meet skills needs.
After reviewing the eight trailblazer LSIP reports published earlier this year, it is clear that they have identified very real and important skills requirements of employers, in some detail. In some cases, this includes extensive and granular technical skills and also more generic skill requirements potentially common to all provisions. This detail seems to add to rather than contradict or duplicate the sort of skills strategies and plans that LEPs/MCAs produce. Understandably the plans vary in focus and length and so it is hard to fully compare them. It is also notable that, in addition to the implications for FE delivery, LSIPs also appear likely to shape the governance of post-16 technical education and vocational training within places.
It seems to us that in the medium term LSIPs will live or die based on one simple question; is anything going to change in terms of skills provision in each locality? To make sure of this, ERBs and their provider partners are likely to need to include the outcomes below in their work. As part of what the guidance describes as Stage A (‘articulating employers’ skills needs’), this includes:
Decide on the intended scope of the plan in terms of sectors of the economy. Most but not all of the trailblazers looked at the whole local economy but this is not a requirement. This is where the strategies of the MCA/LEP as well as the views of employers, could be invaluable.
Identify (via survey, research, focus groups and consultations including data available from the MCA/LEP) occupations in scope which are in short supply at least from level 3 up but probably also including at least some at level 2. Try not to include shortages of labour – i.e. vacancies where barriers to entry are low and employer train staff to full competence largely via informal, on-the-job methods.
Assess discrete gaps in workforce and skill add-ons and update requirements in detail at least for priorities. This is something some of the trailblazers did really well in.
As part of Stage B (‘translating employer demands into provision’), we think this includes:
Working with providers, thoroughly map and assess the relevant existing provision in terms of content, level, and volume. We cannot see how gaps in provision or priorities can be easily identified or finalised without properly mapping the provision and this seems to be acknowledged in the amendments to the guidance
Identify the gaps and priorities in terms of occupations and add on/updating skills
Decide upon action and changes necessary. The ERB, employers and providers can then work together on new provision.
We will return to Stage C (‘addressing learner demand and employer engagement’) in a future blog if we can gather more evidence of what works to increase demand.
We also strongly recommend using the IfATE Occupational Maps, as advised within the updated LSIP guidance. They are easy to use (especially by employers) and will allow employers and partners to move on to using the associated occupational standards. This ought to help employers to focus on what could be missing or needs to be added to the standards and so produce a definition of the skills/training needed for discussion with providers.
We are specialists in translating local labour market priorities into curriculum planning. If you are an ERB interested in how we can help you develop your LSIP, or a provider working out how to manage your LSIP engagement, please get in touch.
Managing Director – James Farr
Senior Associate – Richard Guy