Round and Round the Houses: the Leitch Review of Skills

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹ Leitch (2006, p. 13, paragraph 29).

² Leitch (2006, p. 3).

³ Leitch (2006, p. 49, Box 2.2: a demand-led system).

⁴ Leitch (2006, p. 12, paragraph 23).

⁵ Leitch (2006, p. 83, paragraph 4.43).

⁶ Leitch (2006, p. 83, paragraph 4.42).

⁷ Leitch (2006, p. 83, paragraphs 4.40 & 4.43).

⁸ Some pilots offering Level 3 qualifications are looking for an employer contribution; but the main programme funds all training costs. In many of the first phase pilot areas (under the title ‘Employer Training Pilots’ rather than Train to Gain) employers received money not just for the training but also to cover costs of time spent by employees on training and assessment activities.

⁹ Leitch (2006, p. 12, Box 2).

¹⁰ Leitch (2006, p. 137, paragraph 8.5).

¹¹ Leitch (2006, p. 15, paragraph 42).

¹² Leitch (2006, p. 30, paragraph 1.9).

¹³ As I have pointed out elsewhere, the logical conclusion, given the argument being advanced about skills, productivity and employer subsidies, is to channel money towards the most productive – i.e. highest paid – sectors, and give all the Train for Gain money to the City of London.

¹⁴ Leitch (2006, p. 15, paragraph 38).

¹⁵ Leitch (2006, pp. 132–133).