Evaluation, statistics and OR

Learning does change lives!

Usually my posts are triggered by something I have read on an electronic bulletin or on the BBC website or in a newspaper - this week is different.  I am still buzzing from interviewing people who have taken part in Skills for Life learning, and I have to share what I heard.

I was visiting a company that had been using a number of business improvement tools to ensure they were competitive in their field.  One of the things they had done was to look at levels of literacy and numeracy among ALL staff, to ensure there was a minimum standard of level 2, which they hoped would lead to improvements in quality and prevent any health and safety issues.

Using the Skills for Life model, all staff had undertaken tests (unless they could produce relevant certificates), and for those who showed a learning need, training was provided on site.

I had the immense privilege of interviewing people who had recently achieved their level 2s, and talking to them about how they had felt about the learning and what it meant to them to have achieved.  They had a superb tutor - they couldn't praise her enough, for her support, for her attitude towards them, for her professionalism.

They had also changed their lives - increased confidence, new doors opening to them, passionate about their work and their employer, and with a thirst for learning more.

As I say, it was a marvellous experience to talk to them and hear their successes and their hopes for the future.  My worry is that while I know they will received further excellent employer supported training, the learning they want to do for themselves may not live up to their expectations.  It could be the price of the learning, the availability of what they want to do, the attitude of the tutor or the reactions of their fellow learners - but I dread that something takes the shine off their new found passion for knowledge.

Who can afford learning?

My previous posting raised a comment about those who return to higher level learning as opposed to those who could be perceived to follow the learning route to avoid starting a career - perhaps an overly jaundiced view!!

However there is a point here about how does an individual make the choice to invest in learning?  The investment is not just money, particularly for those more advanced in years, who have a job, a family and are perhaps involved in community activities as well.  Surveys show that a barrier to learning for individuals is that they don't have the time - and it is easy to look at this as just another excuse.  Make the time might be a reaction.

I'll use an unnamed example who my husband worked with a number of years ago.  His educational attainment wasn't over Level 2, but he was in work.  His wife wasn't as they had four children to look after.  He worked a full shift every day, overtime whenever there was any, Saturdays whenever the employers required it - all to ensure he could pay his mortgage and feed and clothe himself, his wife and their four children.

In this case, how would X afford the time for learning, let alone the money?  He might in future get a slightly better paid job if he had level 3 qualifications, but the imperative of "now" for his immediate needs outweighs that potential future income stream.

Selling learning to X in those circumstances requires a whole different understanding of learning, and a new method of delivery.

Adult learning must be the main story

On the 9th February, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) issued a press release about some recent research on adult learning ("One in three adults go back to learning").  The findings of the YouGov poll in December showed that 30% of adults wished they had achieved better qualifications when they were younger and that those that didn't work hard at school were more likely to be unemployed now.  It also showed that 35% of adults had returned to learning to gain more qualifications, and if those qualifications were achieved, this has had a positive effect on their careers.

All of this intelligence is good stuff and provides useful pointers for how to sell the benefits of learning to the vast numbers of adults who do not recognise that they have done any formal or informal learning since leaving school.  Sadly this is not the way it is being used.

The supporting quotations from the LSC and ministers went on to highlight the importance of staying in learning for as long as you can when you are young, and the wide and attractive range of learning opportunities and funding that are available, primarily to those aged under 25.

Both the LSC and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) are obsessed with young people and their qualifications, yet the Leitch report on skills - endorsed by both organisations - points out that the majority of the workforce for 2020 has already left compulsory education. 

It has also been a mantra of the skills and vocational education sector for at least 10 years now, that there is no longer a job for life, and that individuals will change career up to 5 times - entailing gaining new skills and retraining along the way.

So why - given the excellent news that 35% of adults have chosen to go back to learning in later life, and that it has benefited them - must the policy leaders push this message with young people?  Could it be that if adults picked up the message and decided to act upon it, the system would not be able to support them?  Or are there more rewards from Treasury for involving young people in learning?

To meet the targets set out by Leitch for 2020, everyone needs to be involved in learning, not just selected segments of the population.  Getting this message out to everyone and helping everyone access learning must be the objective for DfES and the LSC.

Who's afraid of Bird 'Flu?

If government statistics are to be believed, 11 million adults in Britain lack numeracy skills.  What does this have to do with bird flu?

The scientists and experts say that the latest outbreak of bird flu in Suffolk poses no immediate risk to public health, that it is exceedingly unlikely that any human will get sick as a result of the outbreak on that one turkey farm, and that globally the numbers of human cases are very, very small indeed.  They also say that the public are safe to continue eating poultry.

How are those with poor numeracy skills going to evaluate statements like exceedingly unlikely or very, very small?  Winning the Lottery is also exceedingly unlikely (14 million to 1 or similar odds), but millions still make that bet regularly, because "it could be you!" 

I feel pretty confident in predicting that there will be a fall in the sales of prepared poultry products, because although you cannot catch bird flu from this source, people still think you can.  I also believe that if people read the fairly out of date information on the BBC website, there may well be a large number of abandoned cats in East Anglia, and there will be concern about travelling in the East Anglia region.  Again, people are not sufficiently familiar with numbers to understand the scale of the risk.

Sadly, there will be less concern over the numbers cited about the Suffolk farm itself - 160,000 birds in 22 sheds, on average between 7,000 and 7,500 birds per shed.  Nor is there likely to be much concern over the statements that on modern poultry farms, feeding is done mechanically and involvement of farm workers with poultry is minimal. 

To me, the remote chances of anyone getting bird flu from this outbreak are too small to even consider.  The real issue this story has highlighted to me are the numbers involved in factory farming, and the lack of understanding about how our food is produced.