Agenda item

Update on the visioning exercise for the Adult Learning Service, from Head of Policy, Corporate Strategy.

Report of the workshops held prior to 16 January and the last workshop held on 18 June from Adrian Whittle Head of Culture Libraries Learning and Leisure.

Submission from Save Southwark Adult Learning

London Borough of Southwark (Southwark Adult Learning Services)

Inspection report

6.1  The chair welcomed the adult education students, stakeholders and officers to the meeting. He noted that the issue had been first raised at Council Assembly and that everybody present would have had an opportunity to read the report submitted by Save Southwark Adult Learning (SSAL) and the officers’ reports, which were all circulated in the meeting papers.

6.2  The chair invited Dr Vince Brown, SSAL, to introduce their report. Dr Brown started by noting that a new fee structure had been introduced in 2010 and that this added a repeat fee for art and leisure courses. He reported that this meant that for a typical three-hour class taken over 10 weeks, learners who paid the standard fee of £108 had to find £165 to repeat the course. Those entitled to a concessionary fee of £46.50 also had to pay the ‘repeat fee’ of £165. Dr Brown said that this had deterred people from coming back to do repeat courses.

6.1  Dr Brown then referred to two graphs in the report that he said illustrated the effect of repeat fees on cancelled classes. He held up two diagrams from Autumn 2009 and Spring 2011.

6.2  Dr Brown said that in his view the repeat fees should be the same as the initial fees, and not rise.  He noted that Southwark’s fees for classes were reasonable in comparison with other Adult Education providers and it was only the repeat fees that were problematic. He went on to say that the repeat fees had led to a collapse in the service and that SSAL had anticipated this and instead continued to campaign for a business model with low repeat fees and increased investment in marketing. He said this would enable the service to attract a high number of learners who would in turn generate sufficient revenue to sustain the service .Dr Brown praised the excellent quality of the courses, as highlighted by the recent good Ofsted reports. He ended by reiterating that repeat fees needed to go.

6.3  The chair invited other members of SSAL and users of the service to comment. A student commented that the whole principle of life long learning and access was at stake, because the courses had become so expensive they were now unaffordable and inaccessible.

6.4  The student noted that there had been major investment in Thomas Carlton but it was underused. She explained that participation in adult learning was also about being part of a community of learning, being active and enhancing well-being; she was concerned that this aspect was being lost.

6.5  A student commented that adult learning was often perceived as being fluffy and as merely a hobby, however she said that many of the participants were now practising artisans and artists, working professionally. She went on to note that Peckham was now a thriving artistic community and that there was an opportunity for Thomas Calton to play an active role in this.

6.6  There was a comment by a service user that speaking as a disabled person it was not possible to just use another centre.

6.7  A student commented that her uncle was a tutor of the Pitmen Painters and that she thought it important that people had an opportunity to develop. She reported that she left school at 16 and that these classes provided an opportunity for her to return to education and develop her artistic skills.

6.8  A student commented that service users loved their courses, but that the repeat fees meant they could now only do one term. She went on to say that you needed to build on a skill and that they were all fans of life long learning, and this meant continuity. She reported that she had wanted to do a course this autumn, but none were available at times that she could do.

6.9  A student showed a piece of art and said that he wanted to complete his sculpture, meet people and continue with his studies. Another student said that she had completed CLAiT 1 and 2.

6.10  Cllr Rowenna Davis, member of the sub-committee, commented that Thomas Calton was in her ward and that she was a fan of its provision. She explained that as a backbencher she would need to make representations to the cabinet member and that a request for extra money would be very difficult to meet given the current economic situation. She asked if there was a way forward. Dr Vince Brown replied that using the figures supplied by officers he estimated that if courses could attract fourteen students then they would make money, and 10 -12 would cover costs. He said that in his view the way forward was to promote the courses, and this meant, for example, that the website was updated and made more accessible. He reported that other colleges accepted payment online. Students involved in the campaign had offered to assist with going out and helping to spread the word and he had belief that this method would work. Dr Brown said that Southwark took a different course of high repeat fees that had the opposite effect and led to the closure of courses.  He ended by saying that City Lit and Morley maintained their courses by investing in marketing, rather than high repeat fees.

6.11  A member of the audience said that she was a professor at Goldsmiths and that she had written to Thomas Calton explaining that they could be on a par with Morley College. She said that in her view the repeat fee was not the way forward. She noted that the quality of the teaching was excellent and that the college need to develop a proper recruitment and marketing strategy, and then the repeat fee would become redundant.

6.12  A student commented that enrolment on courses was incredibly complex with unnecessary barriers. She went on to say that students had offered to help promote the courses with stalls and to be ambassadors of the services, however they were told that they were not allowed to do this. A member asked who said this and the student responded that this was a tutor. She went on to say that when they had met with Cllr Ward, the former cabinet member for adult education, they had offered to help with promotion. Students noted that a banner had recently gone up, and this was  appreciated, however in their view just a beginning.

6.13  A member of the audience commented that the budgets of places such as Morley College and City Lit were not comparable with a place like Thomas Calton and he went on to comment that Thomas Calton was a learning centre not a college. He said that most of the people he represented were users of the ESOL service, which was very good. A student responded that ESOL is another part of the service, not the arts and leisure course, and is unaffected by the repeat fees. He responded that while he supported the campaign to abolish repeat fees Thomas Calton did not have the same capacity as Morley College.

6.14  A member of the sub-committee noted that students had reported that the timings of the course did not meet their needs, and wondered if better scheduling might help with increasing course numbers and thus help resolve the difficulties. Another member commented that he had first raised this, and there was a need for to look at delivery of adult education across the system and to work with officers on the financial structuring of the services. He said that he thought there should be an emphasis on the overarching review.

6.15  A member commented that the key issue seemed to be the need for more promotion and the repeat fee. She went on to say while Thomas Calton might not be a Morley or City Lit there still appeared to be an awful lot that could be done.

6.16  The chair invited officers to introduce themselves and respond to the comments received. Deborah Collins explained that she had recently been appointed as strategic director of environment, taking over from Gill Davies. She explained that she had lead responsibility for delivering this service with delivery being led by Adrian Whittle, head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure and strategy being led by Claire Webb, head of policy.

6.17  The dtrategic director commented that this review had being going on for nearly two years and generated a considerable number of reports and considered arguments, and that she looked forward to scrutiny's recommendations.

6.18  The head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure commented that the service had undertaken two workshops with service users, and at the request of the sub-committee, the service had run an additional workshop for students. The officer said that reports on all three workshops had been circulated with the papers.

6.19  He went on to draw members’ attention to a few financial issues. Firstly, the officer reported that funding came externally from the Skills Funding Agency, and this subsidised one course for one learner for one year. He explained that this meant if the service got 1000 learners and they took 6000 courses then the service only received funding for 1000 courses. He reported that there was no additional funding for courses given by the council, and that none was available, and this was the crux of the problem.

6.20  The head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure clarified that officers did not set fees and charges; this was a decision taken by the lead cabinet member based on officer advice.  The officer reported that this decision could be called in by scrutiny.

6.21  The head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure reported that Ofsted also inspected the arts and leisure courses. He explained that the service was required to supply a huge amount of data and that he wanted everybody to be assured that this part of the service was rigorously inspected. The officer commented that the service now had 4500 learners, and this had been doubled through improved marketing.

6.22  The chair asked officers to clarify whether his understanding was correct that the funding from the Skill Funding Agency was there to subsidise the fees, but was otherwise not restricted. The head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure explained that other colleges had other sources of funding; for example, alumni contributed to funding pots. The chair asked the officer to clarify if Lewisham and Lambeth had extra funding sources and the officer replied that he thought that they did.

6.23  Dr Vincent Brown commented that when Dr Hans Meir, from the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) gave evidence to the sub-committee he had made it clear that the service held flexibility in its charging decisions. Dr Brown commented that there was an alternative to funding pots and that this was funding. He said that he though this was a viable alternative for these courses and that this rested on getting more people to do the courses; however the repeat fees undermined this course of action. Dr Brown then read from the Ofsted report, which noted students’ aspirations to do more repeat courses.

6.24  The head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure said that if the council were to subsidize courses it would cost thousands of pounds. The strategic director of environment commented that the hypothesis was that this could be done; that it was a chicken and egg situation, because of the repeat fees. If the council were to take this route there would be a level of financial risk that the council would need to ensure that it had contingencies available if the business strategy failed to break even. In that event, there would need to be a subsidy. The strategic director also noted that the business approach advocated would need some up front investment in marketing to pump prime.

6.25  Claire Webb, head of policy, spoke about the wider vision she was developing. This would be looking at learning for young people and adults, and both courses for skills and employment. Corporate strategy were scoping the review now and when this was completed, she would bring it to the sub-committee.

6.26  The chair asked the head of culture, libraries, learning and leisure when the cabinet member would be taking her decision on fees and charges for adult learning, and he replied that this would happen in December or January. The chair requested that she take into account the discussions that had taken place in the scrutiny sub-committee. A member suggested recommending that the service consider underwriting the service so that it could become self-sustaining, and in any event, the website should be updated.

6.27  Dr Brown commented that unless repeat fees were abolished the service would collapse, and requested that the sub-committee make this recommendation to the Leader, Councillor Peter John. The chair emphasised that scrutiny was not a decision making body and could only make suggestions and recommendations to the cabinet member. He said that the sub-committee was sympathetic to SSAL’s campaign and would ask the cabinet member to take into account all the submissions and discussions that had taken place at the sub-committee. Dr Brown announced that he would lobby Cllr Claire Hickson, cabinet member for adult learning, and explain that SSAL had the full sympathy of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED

The cabinet member will be given a record of the committee’s submissions discussions and asked to take these into account when making the decision on fees and charges for Adult Learning.

The minutes of the relevant scrutiny committees will be consulted to ascertain if officers  made any statements concerning conditions attached to SFA funding and use of the Thomas Calton building, and about consultation with voluntary groups delivering services at the centre.