What if further education colleges led a ‘Cities of Learning’ movement in the UK?

By Anthony Painter, Director of the RSA Action and Research Centre

Follow Anthony on Twitter and Medium @anthonypainter

The sustained embattlement of the FE sector over the past few years has severely damaged its self-confidence. As if a resource crunch of hitherto unimaginable proportions was not enough, in wades Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector to dismiss (clumsily) the sector as ‘failing’. Within this melee, it is next to impossible to articulate a clear message of value for further education in the context of national goals of social mobility, inclusivity, productivity, and meeting the needs of the future workforce and employers.

Instead of drifting quietly into the night, however, the next few years must become a time when the sector gets off the back foot. The direction of travel from the government has been to invest in innovation around colleges — in UTCs for example — but not sufficiently in FE directly. The lens applied by the chief inspector is a schools lens. What has been identified as FE’s greatest weakness should instead become its strength. Colleges cannot simply become a second go at school. They have to offer something very different. Some of the changes that we are seeing to the skills landscape may provide that opportunity for a fresh definition. In this essay, I’ll look to recent developments in the US that harness digital technologies and the untapped learning resources in cities for an example of how FE colleges might lead their own, localised transformation.

Taking advantage of the changing context for FE and skills

There are three contextual factors that could provide some opportunity for re-focus and re-definition: devolution, consolidation and connection. A number of city (and non-city) deals are now in place to devolve the adult skills budget to regional and sub-regional authorities. These sub-regional authorities, expected to increase in number over the next few years, place colleges in closer proximity to funding which has to provide hope for more consistency. Stability of investment, including multi-year deals wherever possible, could help with providing a more solid footing on which to consider the nature of provision going forward. This is something colleges will need to articulate firmly. Devolution can also offer new networks and political energy around the skills agenda. It is for colleges to show persuasive leadership to make this promise a reality.

Area reviews have caused controversy but the inevitable consolidations they precipitate might also provide opportunities. Larger colleges do not have to be more impersonal — local identity and provision will always be important. Mergers may, in time, free up resources as scale economies are realised, enabling investment in innovative forms of spreading learning and progression. If the area reviews get it right, then FE and skills infrastructure will be better mapped onto regional and sub-regional economic needs. There could be less duplication, greater quality and clearer pathways to achievement at higher levels.

Finally, the Apprenticeship Levy creates an opportunity for new connections with business. If there is insufficient innovation in apprenticeship product development then business may well conclude that it should create its own training supply chain. That would be an enormous missed opportunity for colleges. Assuming that the levy is not used as cover for a further major cut to the adult skills budget, then it could become a vehicle for a closer relationship between business, further and, indeed, higher education.

To present devolution, area reviews (consolidation), and the Apprenticeship Levy (connection) as opportunities rather than threats may seem like putting a gloss on things. However, the bigger risk will come not from hopeful optimism but from institutional conservatism in the face of this changing landscape. Unless it fundamentally rethinks its proposition, FE will continue to be portrayed as under-performing and alternative vehicles for the country’s skills needs will be sought out if conservatism is the widespread strategic approach by colleges. With greater imagination, a different approach could meet the needs of learners, employers and our cities and regions in our age that is increasingly characterised by the spread of digital technology. The rest of the essay is devoted to outlining what such innovation could look like.

Digital learner engagement, rooted in the real world of our cities and regions

In The New Digital Learning Age report for the RSA, Louise Bamfield and I concluded that a very different approach was needed to link interest- and passion-driven informal learning (that includes the growth of online learning channels such as YouTube, Khan Academy and Udacity) to more formal forms of learning and accreditation. We concluded that while current online learning systems catered well for the 11 percent of the population (in a survey conducted by Populus) who are experiencing the digital revolution as ‘confident creatives’, it was failing to meet the self-identified needs of the majority. Key to more equitable outcomes will be the engagement of those who are ‘held back’ (20 percent of the population) and the less identified needs of ‘safety firsters’ (30 percent of the population). ‘Held back’ consider themselves to be creative but feel they lack support and access to finance and skills. ‘Safety firsters’ are not particularly engaged with learning which in itself poses risks in the context of a changing landscape of work. In this context, what would a better system look like to meet a wider set of needs than those of the ‘confident creatives’?

There have been many digital-led initiatives to widen and deepen learning. There have also been a series of place-led initiatives and efforts at developing area-based curricula. In our review of new approaches to expanding learning and promoting greater and more inclusive social mobility, one initiative, emerging in the US, seemed to enhance the potential of both by combining these strategies: the ‘City Of Learning’. This project was launched as a pilot in 2013 by the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, to strengthen the city’s identity as a setting for learning by galvanising its institutions, organisations and communities.

Cities of Learning — and there are now 12 — have sought to interface with existing institutions such as community colleges, schools, universities, museums, libraries and youth clubs, supporting engagement and extending their potential for impact on learner outcomes. Learners connect to the City of Learning (now termed ‘LRNG Cities’) through a curated digital platform that provides access to learning experiences on and offline, and combining those experiences to identify pathways of learning called ‘playlists’. Once all the activities on a playlist are complete and learning has been demonstrated (and verified) then learners earn a digital open badge, an inter-operable recognition of learning that is increasingly being used in education and in business (as of mid-2015, 2m open badges had been issued).

The key design features of Cities of Learning are leadership at city level (which could also be a non-city sub-region or county in the UK context), a strong network of education, commercial and political support around the initiative, and an open, curated and accessible, city-wide digital platform linking to and providing learning opportunities. It works with, through and is driven by institutions such as colleges rather than competing with or seeking to replace them. Its focus is to develop learning experiences from passion/ interest to more formal learning (helping to bring on board those safety firsters and held back learners) with the open badge serving as a pathway to further learning experiences. Essentially, Cities of Learning aim to connect an entire city as a network of learning. To take one city as an example, Dallas has 34,743 student accounts registered, 70 percent of students served were economically disadvantaged and more than 200 partner organisations and institutions worked together to create a powerful learning network.

Could FE lead a ‘city of learning’-type initiative in a UK city or region?

A scheme to help engage disaffected learners that ushers a re-evaluation of the connections between learning and localities, that helps connect employers, learners and civic institutions, sits well with the sector’s history. If the sector sees itself as enabled, rather than constrained by the context of the changing landscape described above, FE certainly has the potential to show the requisite leadership of such a scheme. The opportunities here are four-fold:

1. Devolved governance creates a new setting through which colleges can become agitators for change rather than simply ‘providers’ delivering on the latest government priorities. But they will have to be able to articulate a convincing story of change around how to engage learners through concerted city/regional action and more open, engaging platforms for learning. FE’s knowledge of and commitment to the least engaged learners might inform the design of digital infrastructure. In the ‘real’ world, colleges could allow others access to their estate out of core hours to provide an extended range of learning experiences.

2. Consolidation could free up resource for colleges to be part of a ‘city of learning’ style digital platform. They could be partners in the curation and promotion of city-wide learning opportunities.

3. FE content could form a core component of open learning ‘pathways’ in a given place with tutors encouraged to think beyond the classroom alone. There is also an opportunity to scale engagement across multiple locations and a much wider set of partners and communities.

4. Finally, the traineeship and apprenticeship frameworks and their expansion could provide a further spur to innovation. Colleges have the potential to embed open badges in learning activities. These activities are not simply about skills though these are, of course, important; they are also about characteristics and capabilities such as resilience, initiative, teamwork, and persuasiveness. By embedding these skills and capabilities in established programmes of work, the value can be articulated to employers. If colleges become expert in adapting badge frameworks to competencies and capabilities then their relationship with employers (and universities) could be deepened further. Colleges might even start to help companies adapt their frameworks beyond apprenticeships to badges as a wider way of capturing learning.

FE is a sector that has been battered and bruised by decades of centralist policy changes that have been a distraction from its key function in localities. Right now, the ideas outlined here may well seem impossible or overly hopeful of positive outcomes from this next wave of change. But there does, at last, seem to be some way to cast eyes towards a future beyond the next day; even if it would be churlish to suggest that turning the sector’s gaze towards the longer-term will be simple. In order to make that transition, however, the sector needs to create opportunities to re-establish itself in the public mind as an essential driver of a city/region’s dynamism and innovation. More open, place-based, mobilising learning initiatives such as Cities of Learning provide one such opportunity for thinking about the sector’s value afresh. They are at least worthy of further reflection.

Anthony Painter is Director of the RSA’s Action and Research Centre. In his work on policy development, he focuses on a range of policy issues including the impact of new technology on the economy and society, reform to welfare and learning and skills, and reform to public services and a range of public institutions. Anthony is Vice-Chair of Hackney Community College.

This article appears in the RSA / FETL publication ‘Possibility Thinking’.

Download ‘Possibility Thinking’ from the RSA website for full references.