Training providers forum

The Training Provider Forum at this year’s Leisure Industry Week in Birmingham addressed the question:

What are the main issues training providers face in delivering the services the industry demands?

The main themes that providers highlighted were:

1. There needs to be agreed industry standard descriptions for roles.

‘There are very prescriptive routes that do not necessarily support employer needs’

SkillsActive response:

A functional and occupational mapping project is now underway which seeks to provide a definitive list of job roles and descriptions. This information will also inform future NOS development in this area.

2. Finding out what are the true needs of employers.

‘Is there a danger of being too narrow in focus?’
‘Is competency everything?’
‘A balance needs to be struck between specific and general competency.’
‘Not only the need of the employer – personal development of the individual important’
‘Greater flexibility required to assess the level and type of local need (the market)’

SkillsActive response:

Competency:
Competency is defined as the ability to do a job in work. It is central to skills policy and the national standards define competence for a sector. However it is possible to work in the industry and have status on with REPs with a qualification which does not assess competence at work, but will still map to the standards.

Specific/general – employer/ personal development:
There is certainly recognition of the need for general competence and personal development in government skills policy, and SkillsActive will take account of this in development of standards and in the sector qualifications strategy. However, qualifying instructors to do a job will remain key to future qualifications.

Flexibility for local need:
The best way to achieve this is probably through continuing professional development. Qualifications which qualify instructors and gain entry to REPs will contain a range of common and essential skills for all employment settings. Then, depending on local need and the actual job an instructor has to do, they can tailor their CPD and providers can put on courses to meet local need.

3. Uncertainty and confusion.

‘Skills Passport/REPs – what is the relationship?’
‘Bite-sized learning strategy – is this now accepted in the industry?’
‘Government priority funding versus employer need (full-fat v bite-sized learning)’

SkillsActive response:

activepassport will be part of the offer to REPs members who are renewing from March 2008.

Bite sized learning:
Bite sized learning is supported by employers in fitness; this was made clear in the Sector Skills Agreement. There is a new qualifications framework called the Qualifications and Credit Framework which is based on units and credits, in other words it fully supports bite sized learning. SkillsActive sector qualifications strategy will also provide formal sector support for bite sized learning. Unfortunately, government qualification funding regimes are not currently supportive of smaller qualifications and building up bite sized chunks of learning towards a bigger qualification.

Government funding and employer need:
This is a problem for the sector. The sector relies on 'small' qualifications - level 2 gym, first aid, life guarding etc. These are supported by employers and will be part of sector qualifications strategies. The government (LSC) want to only fund big qualifications of over 300 hours. This is based on the government view that it is better for the economy to have people with a broad platform for 'employability' rather than specific training in specific job skills - or at least that is what they would prefer to fund. SkillsActive will continue to press for funding for qualifications which employers need, whatever their size.

4. Affordability.

‘Government focus on funding full level 2/NVQ versus what industry demands’
‘Funding for younger people’
‘Colleges charging full cost recovery’

SkillsActive response:

Government is focusing on full level 2 qualifications, and funding for young people. This is part of a cross sector policy agenda which we can only try to influence in the future.

As a result, the LSC may reduce funding for sector qualifications which may have been there previously and have to charge full cost. SkillsActive is aware of this and is pressing for funding for the qualifications the sector needs.

5. Communication between SkillsActive and Training Providers needs to improve.

‘There should be more Training Provider Forum(s)’
‘Training Provider representation of SAFE’
‘Better communication (marketing) from training providers – specifically to employers/students’

SkillsActive response:

Further Forums are planned and details will be published.
SAFE now has two training provider representatives on the committee – Elaine Briggs (Future Fit), Robin Gargrave (YMCA Fit)

6. Level of complexity – Awarding Bodies/progression through the qualification structure.

‘Workshops/forums required that address this issue’

SkillsActive response:

Awarding Bodies can provide further support for the training providers through workshops. SkillsActive will use the Exercise and Fitness Awarding Body forum to update and feedback decisions that have been made by other groups within SkillsActive.

7. Level of complexity – qualifications and employers.

‘Greater understanding of qualifications, CPD and National Occupational Standards required’
‘Those organisations funding training for employees need raised awareness’

SkillsActive response:

SkillsActive will re-assess the website to ensure that the language and terminology used is simpler and easier to understand. The forthcoming CPD forum/review will seek to clarify relevant issues. The outcomes of the forum will be communicated to the industry through forums, REPs and SkillsActive website.