“SUCCESS for All” has once more adjusted the strategy for post-school education. Former education secretary David Blunkett’s assertion about “the learner at the heart of the process” has been replaced by “putting teaching and learning at the heart of what we do”, together with three other goals about meeting needs, developing staff, and improving quality and success.

None of these is new, but the Department for Education and Skills’

intention to turn up the heat on post-16 could not be more clear. The new goals stress the responsibilities of providers, from teachers through to the national Learning and Skills Council, with the unspoken question:

“Would you start from here?”. LSCs have to re-draw the map of provision, to fit 21st-century demands, using mainly 19th-century foundations.

A few weeks ago, I worked my way around Sussex, looking at the progress that has been made since the local LSC was created. Sussex LSC has established some good working relationships with providers on its patch, and asked me to conduct an independent evaluation of progress.

Its strategic plan defines three main learner groups, young people, adults, and people in employment, and six geographical planning areas, each of which happens to have at least one major FE college within it. The challenge now is to line up the provision within these areas to the benefit of the learner groups.

Progress is good. The colleges, recognised as the key providers, say they trust the LSC. Relationships are professional; critical yet supportive. Contracts with private training providers have been rationalised to favour quality and financial stability. “Business colleges” are to be the hub of training solutions for employers and employed adults.

Two colleges merged swiftly after the LSC was established, and another merger is in progress. Schools have a strong voice alongside colleges and are developing new collaborative arrangements. Quality improvement is driven and supported by FE Sussex, an organisation funded from pooled Standards Fund contributions, to train teachers and managers from the whole area. FE Sussex is a genuinely home-grown provider of research and development. It links with national bodies, and has the backing of higher education.

As yet, it is unlikely that the learners will have noticed any of this. There are still the traces of old competitive practices. Vested interests wield more power than learners. Schools with sixth forms are inside the partnerships, and are positioning themselves for the future. Most providers admit that their biggest strategic challenge is workforce development, and employers have yet to find a voice. But there is a promise in working relationships which are civilised, consultative, and supported by excellent local knowledge.

The strategy is sure-footed. But providers are nervous about policy initiatives. They have positioned themselves according to the LSC’s remit, and good analyses of local conditions, and do not welcome another radical policy review. The debate about further specialisation in FE demands interpretation through age, curriculum, and geography, and there are some necessarily fuzzy borders. Playing to strengths is all very well as long as your strengths are what local learners need.

Sussex, with a participation rate at 17 in excess of 80 per cent, has some very large providers of full-time 16-19 education, not all sixth-form colleges. Two of the biggest colleges were regarded as outstanding in many respects at their last inspections.

The aim is to create a focus for the proper support of 16 to 19-year-olds, wherever they choose to study. Some specialist higher education courses, planned to complement what is available in the area’s universities, provide useful access routes. These will be preserved only if they attract and support learners in ways which are distinctive. Examination reforms have broken down many of the distinctions between academic and vocational, so colleges regard any possibility of specialisation back into the two camps as unhelpful. Locally, obstacles for learners have already appeared as a result of the qualification reforms.

Uncertainty about resources still presents the greatest difficulty. Most of the colleges cannot afford to invest in future developments. Principals are not clear that the spending review will have the necessary impact on core funding. They believe that teachers are underpaid; there is a loss of good staff to schools because of salary differences, and there is competition from commerce and industry in the healthy South-east economy.

The partnerships in Sussex provide the basis not only for plain talking about future development, but for some real action, based on difficult decisions. How many other LSCs can say the same?

Beryl Pratley is a freelance consultant working for the Learning and Skills Council