Introduction

	Sign In Sign-Up

First Year Report

Communities Learning Together

DfEE Adult and Community Learning Fund

and the European Social Fund

Interim

Project Evaluation Report March 2000

(Evaluation of work within the first year and proposals for the second year)

North Tyneside College and CEDAR Training Services Limited

Summary

Expenditure

The expenditure outlay over the first year was largely as predicted. However as greater amounts of development work was required with the community organisations than anticipated we needed to request as small number of changes from the ACLF as the period due to a close. These changes were as follows:-

Budget decreases

Decrease Accreditation costs by £1500

Decrease Learning materials by £2500

Decrease Vol Learng Supp Wkr Trg by £ 500

Decrease Community Group training by £ 500 £5000

Budget increases

Increase Equipment by £1000

Increase Staff travel by £ 500

- Increase Premises by £ 750
  Increase Publicity/Recruitment by £ 50
  Increase Learning Support Grp Trg by £ 700
  Increase salaries by £2000 £5000

Given work carried out in the first year we have produced an amended budget breakdown for the second year, which is attached in Appendix One. The changes proposed from that originally submitted are designed to reflect the reduction in development/support work and increase the level of expenditure on direct training provision. It is also designed to provide a better spread of the budgets across the four quarters given the way we expect work to develop over the year.

Introduction

Background

The application to the DfEE Adult and Community Learning Fund for a major grant to support a two-year project to address widening participation issues in North Tyneside was submitted in October 1998 as a joint application between North Tyneside College and CEDAR Training Services Limited to start February 1999.

The project sought to target specific groups of over 25’s: -

Unemployed people in three North Tyneside wards of high deprivation (Wallsend, Riverside and Longbenton)
People in those wards who lack basic and key skills
People in those wards who do not traditionally participate in any sort of learning
People for whom access to learning is made more difficult because of problems of childcare and transport.

The project received approval in January 1999 and it was agreed that a management group initially comprised of Carole Millington and Ray Craven from North Tyneside College and Marcus Beaumont from CEDAR Training Services would oversee the project. It was also agreed that day to day project co-ordination would be delegated to Marcus Beaumont.

Mission

Originally referred to as the North Tyneside Widening Participation Project it was soon identified that this did not easily trip off the tongue so a more appropriate name of Communities Learning Together was agreed. A mission statement was created as follows:

- "Communities Learning Together exists to involve adults from disadvantaged communities in North Tyneside in developing accessible and relevant learning activities for themselves as a first step in their progression into mainstream education, and to build an infrastructure to support this work that is accountable to those involved."

Underpinning this mission is a series of underlying value statements:

That all adults have the right to equal access to learning activities that are relevant to their needs
To empower the individual learner to be in control of their own learning
To work towards the involvement of learners in the planning and management of services
That the project should at all times be responsive as possible to the groups it serves
To be flexible in how we respond to groups that respects their diversity
To work in partnership with organisations and individuals who share the mission and values of the project.

Aims

The initial aims of the project were to: -

invest expertise and financial support to build a self-sustaining learning infrastructure designed to identify and link informal and formal learning opportunities to community activities which are familiar and relevant to local people and are designed to promote individual self-help and community cohesion and development.
enable community organisations to become a platform for learning by supporting the development and management of learning opportunities linked to their activities.
enable community organisations to attract involvement from sectors of the community traditionally excluded from learning opportunities by providing activities that are not just learning ends in themselves but are the door to further and more structured learning through the provision of life and vocationally relevant skills.
establish a project worker to work with groups of people in the local community to identify their own learning needs and the ideal place, mode, time and method of delivery.
promote, develop and deliver learning programmes for adults through the community-based organisations and provide such organisations with advice, support and resources in order that they may participate in programme delivery themselves on a self-help basis where appropriate. Support workers will be identified from among the community groups and provided with training as identified and support given.

Rationale

The rationale for this approach is that we wish to be able to draw on the knowledge of local people who understand their own needs and who have roots within their communities to confirm those needs as a way to widen participation. The project will seek to empower local people to decide for themselves what will best meet their needs in terms of what will enable them to secure places in the labour market and contribute to their local communities.

The project was seen as different because: -

It operates by empowering people to identify their own needs and then the location, mode and manner of delivery
Ownership will reside within the communities the project supports
It will create sustainable pathways to access mainstream educational provision
Individual learning opportunities can be developed within a inter-community support network
The network will offer interchangeable support and skills
The groups will be registered as a charity for community vocational learning.

The government within the white paper ‘Learning to Succeed’ saw adult and community based learning as a vital part of the drive to widen participation in order to "build communities’ self-confidence and capacity, and to promote good citizenship and regeneration". They saw this as embracing community learning environments such as clubs and community centres as well as more mainstream provision by the local authority and schools. (Clause 7.30) In developing proposals for the new Learning and Skills Council it required local learning partnerships led by local authorities to prepare lifelong leaning plans.

The North Tyneside Lifelong Education Strategic Plan ‘Regaining the Joy of Learning’ puts forward the belief that lifelong learning is important amongst others because:-

It can make a significant contribution to equality of opportunity, particularly for those who have left the formal education system with untapped potential, and
It promotes social values by increasing motivation, increasing active citizenship, promoting community leadership and combating anti-social activities.

The plan concentrates on the supply side of education with an overwhelming concentration on the under 19’s age range. However its key lifelong learning objectives include:-

To ensure the involvement of learners of all ages in decision-making about lifelong learning
To promote a range of learning opportunities which include the development of leisure related interests and skills and to ensure that there is a wide range of opportunities which will be attractive to and accessible for people wishing to return to learning, especially those who have failed in or been failed by the conventional education system
To ensure that people are aware of the benefits of, and opportunities that exist for lifelong learning
To capture people’s interest through a varied and wide range of opportunities including imaginative and unconventional approaches, in formal and informal settings
To work towards removing barriers to access
To maximise the potential of people of all ages who are not professional educators to assist in learning processes.

The plan suggests a key activity as being ‘Prioritising and developing the range of learning opportunities’ in the belief that " ... young people and adults require a new learning environment composed not only of formal schooling but also informal learning opportunities so that they receive the support not only of teachers but of other adults.". This fits well with the aims of the project as it seeks to bridge the gap between the demand and supply sides of education to create an informal learning environment within which the key objectives of the project, funders and local strategic plan can be achieved.

Funding

The project has received funds from two sources:-

DfEE Adult and Community Learning Fund

The aims of the DfEE Adult and Community Learning Fund is to:-

Encourage more people and organisations to get involved in community-based learning activities of all kinds
Draw in people unaccustomed to participation in learning activities
Open up access to learning in terms of location, delivery arrangements and content
Build the capacity of community-based organisations to provide learning opportunities outside conventional educational structures
Promote effective partnerships between community organisations, other voluntary bodies, education providers and other statutory agencies
Add value to activities supported by charities, trusts and private donors.

In furthering these aims the project will seek to:-

be innovative by developing new approaches, or adapting existing ones from elsewhere, to involve people who are wary of formal learning
be sustainable by seeking to develop a new infrastructure to meet long-term unmet needs and to tap into mainstream and other sources of funding, to enable the work of the project to continue after the support from the Fund finishes
build effective partnerships at community level to enable community involvement in the development and delivery of educational provision.

European Social Fund

At the same time as the DfEE application was being developed and processed, CEDAR Training Services had developed and submitted the outline of two European Social Fund (ESF) bids into the North East of England Objective 2 Priority 1 and Priority 4 packages. It was suggested and agreed that the DfEE budget and ESF budgets be consolidated. Formal ESF submissions were developed accordingly. The Priority One project was approved by Government Office North East in May 1999 and the Priority Four project in October 1999.

The priority one application was developed to extend the project’s ability to build the learning infrastructure including undertaking initial research into learning needs, promoting and supporting community involvement, and the training of workers within the targeted community organisations. It has also been used to provide training to freelance and sessional tutors in learning needs analysis and course design.

The priority four application was to provide advice and tutor guidance/mentoring support within the targeted communities. This is used to fund Tutors to undertake the learning needs analysis, provide advice and guidance, and allow them to work with learner groups to develop of bespoke learning programmes.

The support from the DfEE Adult and Community Learning Fund and European Social Fund has enabled us to develop a project with a total value of :-

DfEE Adult and community Learning Fund £98,770
Volunteer involvement with an estimated value of £42,895
European Social Fund with a value of £110,721

- - - - Total £252,476

Therefore the DfEE award of £98,770 has enabled us to attract an additional £153,706 support. However this is not likely to be the end as the group network have already started fund-raising for the residential, see later, and will soon start on developing other activities within the project.

Project Management

The project has been monitored and developed through monthly partnership meetings. Work undertaken in the previous month is reviewed, issues considered and forthcoming activities planned. The meetings also receive and approve the quarterly reports to NIACE.

The meetings are attended by Carole Millington and Ray Craven from North Tyneside College and Marcus Beaumont from CEDAR Training Services and are usually held in the college. Invitations are given to others to attend including the college’s finance director, members of the staff team, and representative from the learner groups involved in the project from time to time. So far the learner groups have not responded to invitations, which appears to be due to lack of confidence. We are sure that this will be overcome by summer 2000.

These meetings are linked to three other types of meetings:-

Staff meetings – Project staff come together on a formal basis every month to consider tactical issues relevant to the project’s work. These meetings both feed into and feed from the Project Management Team meetings via the Project Co-ordinator
Community network steering group meetings – These meetings involve representatives from all of the learner groups the project works with. Initially very informal these meetings are becoming more structured as they begin to take on tasks, such as the organisation of a weekend residential and the production of a joint newsletter
Community education workers meetings – These monthly meetings are organised by the project to bring together workers within the field to address issues relevant to our work. The meetings allow us to bring other field workers up to date with project progress, enable them to question and influence our work, and address issues of mutual concern.

Project Team

The project team has been brought together with a range of management, project development, administration and quality control expertise.

Members and roles

The staff team comprises, as at March 2000, of:-

Marcus Beaumont – Project Co-ordinator
Meg Aubrey – Project Worker
John Hannen – Project Worker
Christine Beaumont – Administration Worker
Dave Thompson – Learning Activity Support Assistant (Benton)
Peter Leggott - Internal Verifier

Supported by:

a pool of sessional tutors
a pool of volunteers.

Premises

Originally the project operated from the Newcastle office of CEDAR Training Services. However it became increasingly clear that the community groups had little identity with Newcastle and found it difficult to access. Accordingly the project moved to new premises in the Segedunum Business Centre in Wallsend. This move has been successful as a number of meetings with community groups have been held here at which positive comments were received and a number of volunteers are now coming into the centre to use our computers.

Equipment

The project has made use of equipment provided by CEDAR especially office furniture and IT equipment. This has been supplemented by new equipment purchased for the project. However the restriction on the purchase of IT equipment imposed by ESF regulations has held back some of the project’s work.

Staff support, supervision and development

Regular meetings are held with all project staff on a formal and informal basis. All staff receive, for example, a monthly staff support and supervision session with the Project Co-ordinator. Carole Millington, Vice Principal, North Tyneside College provides the Co-ordinator with support and supervision sessions.

All staff are encouraged to participate in activities to further their own personal development. These include:-

Marcus R Beaumont – Currently undertaking a M Phil at the University of Newcastle, and a Community Education Studies course at Wallsend People’s Centre
Meg Aubrey and John Hannen – Introductory Course in Microsoft Office, and Leading a Team course at NTC @ Swans
Christine Beaumont – Bookkeeping and Managing Accounts provided by North Tyneside Voluntary Organisation Development Agency.

Quality assurance/evaluation

It was clear very early on that whatever approach was developed to community education the project would be open to questions being asked about the quality of programmes it provides. To counter this a specialist worker, Peter Leggott, was employed on a sessional basis. Peter is an External Verifier with a number of national awarding bodies and was formally a Manager with Newcastle College. His role is to develop and implement quality assurance and control systems that ensures community based provision meets the rigour required of mainstream provision.

The system developed so far includes procedures covering:-

the recruitment and selection of tutor staff
the conducting of learning needs analysis and course design work undertaken by tutors and learner groups
the formative monitoring and evaluation of learning programmes, linking in with external accreditation requirements where appropriate
the summative evaluation of programmes, including course reviews and learner feedback.

Further work during year two is planned including:-

staff induction
sessional staff development
integrating learning programme evaluation into future programme design
improving monitoring systems, especially recruitment, equal opportunities, and progression.

Conclusion

The project has benefited from the combination of the ‘fieldwork’ knowledge and experience provided by CEDAR, the ‘education’ knowledge and experience of the college, and the community development knowledge and experience provided by the Project Workers. However the benefits have not been all one way as each partner organisation has also benefited from the increased interaction from involvement in the project.

The major element missing in the first year, which will be given a high priority in the second, was the lack of involvement in the projects’ management by the community organisations. This was expected , at least in the early stages, but it has proven more difficult than expected to involvement them in the formal aspects of project management. This might be because of a lack of experience of this happening. It seems from comments made by groups that although their is a history of their being consulted on relevant issues there has been little or no history of them being involved in the management of projects of this size and complexity. Initially they mistrusted the motives in wanting to get them involved – is this another example of token involvement – but when it was clear that it was ‘for real’ then the seriousness of the project and its complexity scared them away. We cannot therefore assume that just because we want to invite community involvement that there is a willingness and capacity within the community to respond to this without significant capacity building.

It has become clear, as will be detailed later in the report, that traditionally this capacity building has been turned into the provision of ‘more training’. We believe this is not the appropriate way to raise capacity. Committee members have on numerous occasions refused to participate in ‘training’ because they see it as ‘school’ (i.e. very formal). We need to develop informal capacity building mechanisms alongside those for learners in the community generally.

Overall however we have created a small central team both at project management and project team levels that demonstrate high levels of commitment to the aims and ethos of the project. We now need to build on this by concentrating the second year on developing both community volunteers, and tutor staff who have the commitment, knowledge, skills and approaches to work out in the community.

Project Activities – First Year

Initial Targets

Aims and objectives for year one were set as follows:-

Aim 1 - start building a self-sustaining learning infrastructure to identify and link informal and formal learning opportunities to community activities which are familiar and relevant to local people and are designed to promote individual self-help and community cohesion and development

Objective 1 – To identify and support a minimum of three community organisations who wish to become a focus for learning activities within their community
Objective 2 – To identify, train and support 40 local people through the network of community organisations
Objective 3 – Identify, train and support 30 tutors on undertaking learning needs analysis and learning programme design

Aim 2 – To enable community organisations to promote, develop and deliver learning programmes for adults linked to their activities that will attract involvement from sectors of the community traditionally excluded from learning

Objective 1 – To provide regular advice, support and resources to community organisations through the employment of a project worker
Objective 2 – Establish three learning groups who come together around a common objective, need or aspiration and who are supported in identifying their own learning needs and selecting the location, time and method of learning activity, each with 12 to 20 people active at any one time
Objective 3 – Provide each learner with access to 20 hours of guidance and advice and an average of 30 hours of tuition

Aim 3 – To identify, train and support a pool of volunteer support workers from amongst the community groups who can help people to decide for themselves what will best meet their needs in acquiring knowledge and skills that are relevant to their daily lives, contribute to their local community, and enable them to secure places in the labour market.

Objective 1 - To develop a network of community leaders, identified by community organisations, who will support the groups in their areas as well as providing peer support and mentoring for each other
Objective 2 - To bring those community leaders together to form a project support group with representation (minimum two) from each targeted community and enable those representatives to lead the work of the project within their community
Objective 3 – Identify, train and support 20 local people to provide peer mentoring support

The Operating Environment

In common with many other projects CLT was developed within an established but constantly changing environment. We have worked hard to identify and fit into that environment and exert influence upon it. The overall operating environment has been identified as including both a Learning Environment and a Community Environment.

The Learning Environment

The project seeks to build a new learning infrastructure within an adult learning environment that is already complicated and unfortunately largely irrelevant and inaccessible to the target audience. However it was important for the project to be aware of the existing infrastructures and activities to learn lessons on what might or might not attract involvement from such an audience.

Provision for adults within North Tyneside largely falls into three type of provision:-

Further Education – Courses provided by the two colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council – North Tyneside College and Tynemouth College. These range from vocational courses for the 16 to 19 age range (Tynemouth is a Sixth Form college), through adult courses during the daytime and evening, to bespoke courses for local employers.
Adult Education – Courses provided by the Local Education Authority (North Tyneside Council) and a number of smaller voluntary sector providers such as the WEA, in non-vocational areas. These tend to be provided through local primary schools and community centres.
Vocational Education – Courses provided by the Economic Development department of the Council and a number of training providers. These range from Taster Courses in a wide range of Skill areas through IT courses to Start Your Own Business and similar courses.

Most providers operating in all three areas have been operating for a long time. They are well established and generally have a good reputation although not necessarily within the targeted communities. Discussions have been held with most major players in all three areas. They are well aware of educational changes being brought in following the election of the Labour Government in 1997. However the relationship between the agencies has not always been a good one. Tensions in a number of areas have left a perhaps-understandable feeling of mistrust.

In overall terms, it has been the experience of the project that the main providers tend to ‘do there own thing’. We can identify little joined up thinking or joint working at community level that benefits non-participants despite the best endeavours of some of the players. A number of initiatives have been taken by them to overcome this and pave the way for partnership working. However these tend to have a centralised approach that gives little or no involvement for the community. They are seen as people to be ‘consulted’ rather than ‘involved’.

There is a strong commitment to partnership at the top within all organisations which does not always appear to be filtering down to lower levels. Although CLT has received wholehearted support from very senior offices in all agencies it has suffered from much mistrust from lower management and providers. However, it would be wrong to imply that this applied to everyone. Within North Tyneside Council, for example, we have received both obstructions and help in equal measure.

It is also clear that ‘funding steers’ affect the way that provision is planned. Restricting education to academic or vocational courses is clearly within the economically driven agendas of all recent governments. However many of these are irrelevant to non-participants. The amount of non-vocational provision has been drastically reduced as the FEFC restricted funding to Schedule 2 provision. The granting of non-Schedule 2 money to colleges during this past year has gone someway to redress this imbalance. However our work to date suggests that traditional non-vocational adult education classes are also irrelevant to the majority of people within the target audience.

The increasing of formal academic, vocational and adult education although perhaps not at the level desired by government or providers, would, we feel, have little or no effect on non-participants. A new and different approach is required that is more relevant, accessible and enjoyable to non-traditional learners.

The Community Environment

Many of the comments on the learning environment equally apply to the community environment resulting in a similar split of support and non co-operation for the project.

Community development is largely the responsibility of the Council. Most of the targeted communities have had some level of community development input and many continue to do so. However changes in the structure of the relevant Council staffing seems to have reduced the impact. Many communities have complained about the lack of, or ineffectiveness of, the community development support provided. This has led to mistrust of the Council and, in some cases, open hostility.

This too has impacted on the project. We have had to undertake much more community development work then we planned. The overall approach adopted by support agencies, not just the Council, appears to rely on the capacity of community organisation to manage their affairs and develop activities for local people to be raised through formal training provision. On our experience to date, we feel this is built on a false premise; that vocational training appropriate and acceptable to business would be appropriate and relevant to community organisations. Community organisations are a mirror of the communities they serve. Just as such formal provision is not relevant, accessible or enjoyable for local people, similarly it is not so for local community organisations.

If we are to build a new learning infrastructure based on the network of community organisations their capacity must be increased. The way to do this, however is not through ‘training’. Just as ‘A new and different approach is required that is more relevant, accessible and enjoyable to non-traditional learners’ this approach will also be needed for the community organisations as well. If this is not done the capacity will remain low and the infrastructure will collapse as soon as development support is withdrawn. If we are to build the infrastructure we must do so in ways that are sustainable in the longer term.

Overall educational approach within the project

The project has identified a major lack of ‘Non-formal Community Education’ provision within North Tyneside. We wish to test if this approach would provide more relevant, accessible and enjoyable learning programmes that would attract non-traditional learners and thus contribute to widening participation.

It has taken some time for the project team to clarify for itself what the term ‘non-formal community education’ means. This lack of clarity no doubt led to confused messages being given to both community organisations and other providers, which perhaps in turn added to problems in building working relationships and overcoming mistrust. The model we have developed has the following features:-

Learning must be centred on the needs of the learner group
Expert tutor help must be provided to enable the learners to identify:-

Where they want to get to (i.e. their aim and objectives)
What knowledge and skills they will require to achieve this
What knowledge and skills they already posses
What gaps exist which need to be met
A learning programme that will address those gaps

Tutor help must also:-

Adopt teaching styles suitable for the learner group and subject, which reinforce the central role of the learner as a partner in programme design and delivery
Enable and encourage learners with existing knowledge and skills to share it with other group members
Ensure pre-set courses are only built into the learning programme when requested by the learners
Ensure that the speed and level of learning is controlled by the learner group
Enable the learner group to manage their own learning programme
Identify appropriate tutors to deliver elements of the programme

Accreditation needs to:-

Be introduced when it is not seen as a barrier to participation
Follow the process the learner group follow as well as the product of that learning
Cover the existing knowledge and skills via APL/A as required by the learners
Recognise the knowledge and skills achieved at the end of the programme
Be tailored to the level and range of knowledge and skills achieved by each individual within the learning group (it cannot be assumed that all groups members will cover the same range of knowledge and skills and operate at the same level)

Learning needs to be provided in a venue which best balances the needs of the learners (identity, comfort, onsite facilities, location) with the needs of the learning activities (size, equipment) – the learning wherever possible should go to the learner not the other way around
Quality assurance/control mechanisms need to be developed and built in to all programmes to ensure learning is of high standard and is meeting learner need

Case Study of Non-formal Community Education in action – Benton Estate Community Group

The Benton Estate Community Group has operated for approx. three years within two redundant bungalows within the Benton Estate. They have provided a Parent/Toddler activity and a range of social activities for residents. The Benton Estate is a local authority housing of approx. 1000 houses built in the 1940s. It is a stable community but with few amenities. The Communities Learning Together Project Co-ordinator has taken the tutor role with the group since May 1999.

When initially contacted, via a local Council’s Community Partnerships Officer, the group felt very negative about outside agencies, saw training, which had been offered by various agencies, as being irrelevant and had taken up few opportunities offered, and were highly suspicious of the project.

An initial group of community volunteers were offered support in the form of discussions looking at the activities they were undertaking to see how they could be improved. The learning process had now started without the group even being aware. It became clear quite quickly that they had had a number of negative experiences of training, which had put the members off. Some also had basic skill problems that they were not facing up to. However it was agreed that an initial objective was to organise a summer activity programme. Learning activities were planned including publicity, keeping records, meeting health and safety requirements, organising a tuck-shop, handling cash and keeping simple records. It was agreed that these would be covered through a series of weekly planning sessions. All through the process the group determined what they covered and when they felt that they were happy with their knowledge and skill in an area. The Tutor constantly challenged group members, in a positive way, throughout the process and relevant input was provided as and when required.

Despite concerns from other agencies that felt that the group was not capable of organising the activity programme the group succeeded in running the activity every working day through the six-week summer holiday. The group set a target of 450 parent/toddler attendances (15 each day for 30 days). Counting the parents, grandparents and children who attended, the group had in fact involved over 1000 daily attendances over the six weeks without one major problem. They had also raised over £500 for group funds. The group came out of the experience really positive and raring for more. Evaluation of the summer activities identified a number of weaknesses that the group now sought to address. Support was provided to enable them to plan how this would happen. Learning was planned and subsequently undertaken in ‘first aid for babies and young children’ (provided by staff from North Tyneside College), and ‘arts and crafts for children’ (organised by a freelance tutor).

The £500 raised was used to knock through to create a large activity room, which is now used for activities for adults such as Keep Fit, as well as for the parent/toddler activities. Indeed the keep fit, which started as one session per week, is now up to three sessions per week. IT skills in the group were identified as very low but resistance was encountered whenever it was suggested that it be addressed. It became clear that the group had attended a course at the local high school previously and had been put into a group of school children, who made fun of them; an experience the group, understandably, did not want to repeat. However it was clear that a number of the group were considering buying a PC for Christmas but didn’t know how to make a choice. Using this pretext the tutor suggested that the group book the college’s IT bus, ‘for adults only’, with someone to help them identify how to choose a PC. This was accepted and ten people attended on the day. This was such a success that the group booked for two more sessions to do ‘Computers don’t bite’ and ‘Webwise’. The group then started complaining that the "IT bus is OK but you cannot actually get into the Internet". The Tutor suggested using the school’s computers but this again was resisted. To overcome this it was then suggested that the IT suite be booked for their exclusive use one evening a week for six weeks – no children! Initially six people signed up for this . The sessions were started and by week three the group had grown to 15, with tuition being provided by the school’s IT technician. By the 34end of the six weeks the group wanted to gain a ‘certificate’ and discussions are being held with the college and school to put an accredited programme in place.

The group has turned, in less than a year, from being negative non-learners who lack commitment and confidence to do any kind of formal learning to a group that sings the praises of this new approach to learning at every opportunity. They really have acquired a joy of learning. Perhaps however the most positive feature of all is that two of the group are now planning to deliver their own learning programmes in Keep Fit and Basic Motor Car Maintenance for others in the community.

Conclusion

In both learning and community environments there are many agencies and individual workers who are highly committed to existing approaches. Organisations are funded to deliver in an approved way and they have invested heavily in meeting the requirements placed on them. They cannot, nor should they, be expected to change this overnight. Policy makers must first be convinced of the need to change. They must then help the agencies and workers to adopt different approaches. Priorities will need to be reorganised, workers will need to be re-educated, and funding will need to be re-prioritised. This cannot be achieved by a two-year project such as this; although we can and should act as a demonstration of what can be achieved through changes in approach.

Project Activities

Target Audience

The project seeks to provide the following support to the various stakeholders:

Target population (non-participating learners)

Support in accessing relevant learning opportunities linked to community activities
Enabling individual learners to develop their own learning action plan setting out their own individual goals
Provide access to childcare, travel costs and basic equipment and materials

- To achieve the following outcomes:-

- Increased involvement with and commitment to community activities
- Development of responsibility in terms of identifying and meeting individual needs in whatever areas – employment, community activity and personal growth
- Progression onto certificated learning programmes available at outreach centres, community centres or at the college
- Membership of the growing number of local co-operatives.

Community Organisations

Supporting the identification, development and managing of learning opportunities within or linked to their activities
Bringing them together to create the network of community learning projects
Providing advice and guidance counselling to enable members of the community to work with each other to identify their own needs
Identify a network of community leaders, identified by the community organisations who will provide support within their communities as well as peer support and mentoring for each other
Produce a joint action plan within each community or ward including specific measurable and achievable targets against which audits can take place.

Providers, tutors and Support Workers

Identifying, training and supporting of tutors to help local people identify their interest, wants and needs and motivating them to take action to achieve them.
Training of tutors to facilitate the development of non-formal learning programmes

Activity to March 2000

To work towards the project aims the following activities were planned for the period to 31 March 2000. The activities have been included in a table alongside details of the work undertake and the results of that work.

In the June 1999 project report we identified that if we are to attract non-traditional learners through linking learning opportunities to community activities we need to ascertain:-

The capacity of community organisations to be involved in adult learning initiatives
Issues and priorities of local people (i.e. what are the issues that will motivate them to be involved in some form of learning activity)
Perception of learning in general and current learning provision in particular, and
The barriers to participation and how people feel those barriers could be overcome.
For many people the issues and problems in their lives are of such complexity and urgency that education is not seen as a relevant solution.

Activity

By March 1999

Contacted a range of public and community organisations

Agreed project name, work plan, targets and project management arrangements

Collected statistical data re: targeted communities.

By May 1999

Established work requirements, and job roles, undertaken recruitment and appointed project worker(s)

By September 1999

The project team to be in place
Pilot learning programmes started

By 31 October 1999

To undertake initial promotion work and identify interested individuals

Bring together three steering groups

Complete initial training and induction of project team

Identify and recruit volunteer learning co-ordinators

Work details

Over 60 different organisation, workers and groups contacted. Initial mistrust and lack of co-operation identified. Addressed by discussions to clarify role of the project and its relationship to existing activities.

Work plan agreed for the first year. This was not too far out in application but building the infrastructure to support the learner groups proved much more difficult than expected. We believe this is mainly due to their lack of experience in developing project work – they tend to ‘host’ activities provided by the local authority.

Statistics have proved difficult to collect given that communities do not coincide with local authority ward boundaries.

A broad-based team was recruited but the loss of the experienced community tutor very early on put pressure on other team members. It has proved extremely difficult to attract a Community Tutor on a Part-time basis.

Sessional tutors used to develop and deliver initial learning activities. However this has not really filled the gap. Using mainstream college staff has proved difficult. Most do not have the skills to work with the target group. On three occasions college staff led groups have seen the learner group collapse as people do not return after the first session.

Publicity around initial learning activities using leaflets delivered door to door proved ineffective.
Concentrated on involving those already active in community groups to see if they would accept informal learning and get a lot out of it. Learning activities developed with community group through discussion sessions. Appropriate sessional tutors identified.

Bringing together initial learner groups was undertaken around taster sessions. Although promoted across communities they did not attract outside involvement. The people involved already knew each other and were part of an informal network already.

Project team induction completed. Regular monthly support and supervision sessions arranged.

Work to identify volunteer learning co-ordinators within the community organisations began in December 1999. This has proved difficult. The individuals have already got a high commitment in time and energy to their group. Although keen to take on this new role they have found it difficult to give it the time and attention it requires.

Result

All community groups now supportive of the project. Fieldworkers and education providers accept the project albeit mainly by trying to ignore it.

Reallocating work, and budgets, helped address this problem. However there is a need considerable further work to build capacity within groups.

Worked with the local authority to ensure new community appraisals will include information on learning at a community level as well as ward level.

The combination of community development and education skills within the team has proved very effective.

We need to identify a small team of part-time tutors who have the skills and commitment to work with and in the community.

Word of mouth proved much more effective. Marketing support will be required to help us find other ways.

The groups proved effective although initially very small. We need to explore how we can build on informal networks within the community.

Personal development programme created for each team member.

Specialist worker recruited in Benton as a pilot to identify local people outside existing groups with the interest, commitment and skills to take on this role. Other communities have asked for similar support.

Activity

By 31 December 1999

Carry out initial learning programme development including carrying out initial learning needs analysis with initial three learner groups

Identify appropriate community venues/hosts

Pilot learning programmes completed

Devise 12 month delivery programme

Identify and allocate resources in line with the delivery programme

By 31 January 2000

To have planned project launch for the network

By 31 March 2000

To have carried out a review of the project to date and set new work plans and targets for the second year

Work details

Learning activities centred on the community groups continues. Each group goes through a process of learning needs analysis and learning activity design. The process starts with identifying individual and group aspirations and ends with an agreed learning activity programme. This might, indeed does for most groups, include a wide range of activities. This requires high level of skill from the tutor to be effective.

Work has been undertaken with all community groups to identify appropriate space for learning activities. This has proved difficult in some communities given the lack of space. Many facilities do not exist or are in poor condition. Support has been provided to help groups create rooms (e.g. Benton have knocked two rooms into one, East Howden are redecorating their centre (and learning a new set of skills along the way).

At first we assumed that learning activities would have a set duration in the same way as a course has a start and end date. This has not proved to be the case. Each group continues to add to its activities as it goes along. This raises many issues for us in terms of activity management, staff contracting, quality control, and accreditation.

We have worked with community organisations to develop learning plans but this has proved difficult to do; they find it hard to look beyond their current activities. Indeed they are not used to looking beyond the next week or two. This may be a reflection of how people tend to live from week to week.

Given problems with group planning we have had to be much more responsive with resources on a week to week basis than we hoped.

Work has started with the network to develop a formal structure for themselves. We hope that these will be agreed at the May meeting, some 5 months later than expected. Clearly the speed at which groups are willing and able to develop both individually and collectively is what must govern this process.

This report sets out the results of a comprehensive review of the project’s work to date, the issues we have confronted and how we see the work being taken forward into the second year.

There is a high level of interest in IT particularly word processing, DTP and the Internet. However the majority of the communities we work do not have access to PCs for educational purposes.

Result

Nine learner groups are now operating within six communities. Work on another three is on going, which should start after Easter 2000.

The facilities (i.e. rooms and equipment) are now attractive for people to use. Churches host three venues, which provides excellent facilities but brings problems for people who do not identify with the church.

Learner groups do not operate like courses. We need to develop effective management processes for them if they are not to get out of control.

We have agreed with the groups that we must identify what is happening three months ahead. Work is now underway for the period Easter to Summer. If this is successful we will extend it to look six months ahead for the next plan.

Resources will be allocated in line with the agreed plans for Easter to summer.

This has no doubt proved a massive challenge for some groups but they are sticking with it despite the pressure it puts on them. They still leave network meetings smiling.

There is a high level of confidence within the project team that we can achieve the project's objectives by the end of the funding period.

Issues around the lack of IT facilities must be addressed. The steering group is keen to develop a project on this during 2001.

The starting point for the project was to determine who was not participating in further education and, if possible, determine why that is. We looked at the targeted wards (Wallsend, Riverside and Longbenton). However it was clear that each ward encompassed a number of different communities. Accordingly we met with groups from across all three areas to determine which communities we should concentrate on. In our first progress report to NIACE in March 1999 we reported that representatives from over 30 groups in the target areas had been consulted and informed about the project. If we attempted to cover all the communities within each ward we would be spread to thin. We decided to concentrate on those communities that have a clear identity, no history of local educational provision, and who have had low levels of community development support compared to other areas in the borough. The communities chosen were:-

Percy Main
East Howdon
Royal Quays
Willington Quay
Howdon
Chirton
Benton
Holy Cross
Orde Avenue.

In researching each community it was clear that statistics only exist in any meaningful way at ward level, yet to local people these boundaries are meaningless. Indeed some communities straddle a number of wards, which made the picture even more confusing.

Conclusions

Our initial research, albeit lacking proper sampling, suggested that there is a low level of interest in formal mainstream provision other than in IT. However there is also a low level of knowledge about provision. People are not motivated to go out and seek education. Originally we felt that we could take advice and guidance out into the community and as long as we offered it in a non-patronising way it would improve access and thus contribute to widening participation. Our initial work suggested that this is not enough. Just making mainstream courses more accessible is not enough. What is needed are learning programmes that are directly relevant to what the individuals wish to know about or be able to do. They may not be interested in doing a Painting and Decorating NVQ but they might be interested in knowing how to decorate little Joe’s bedroom. We therefore determined that the project needs to enable learners to identify their own needs and identify, or create, learning programmes to meet them.

Clearly if we are to develop new initiatives that would tackle non-participation we have to:-

Broaden the view local people have of education from formal classes to include informal learning activities
Change perception of, and involvement in, learning initially within the community organisations themselves and then within the wider community
Ensure that existing providers see our work as significantly different yet complementing and extending existing provision
Develop a pool of highly skilled Community Tutors capable of enabling learner groups to identify and manage their own learning programmes.

Restraints on our work within the first year

As the work of the project has developed during this first year a number of issues have arisen that have affected, and in some ways restrained, the work of the project team.

Funding

The addition of European Social Fund has greatly extended the project’s ability to achieve its objectives. However this has not been without cost. To date the adding of ESF has been at the cost of a very much higher level of bureaucracy including the need to document every conceivable action. It is estimated that up to 50% of the Co-ordinator’s time is spent on this process.

The addition of the ESF increased the turnover of the project significantly and it quickly became clear that CEDAR would not be able to handle the cash flow proposed for both sources of funding. Negotiations were held with the College who agreed to reimburse all project expenditure on a monthly basis. This has worked well, with only minor adjustments to the methods of payment, to date. It is evidence of how the resources of a larger institution can be used to facilitate activity within the voluntary/community sector at little or no extra cost or inconvenience. Without this support such a large project could not have been undertaken.

Community statistics

Having information about a community can help put our work into context. However we have found it very difficult to obtain information relevant to many of the communities. Statistics provided by the local authority mainly relate to the 1991 census. This is now 9 years out of date and does not therefore take account of many of the changes within communities. Indeed Royal Quays did not exist in 1991 and therefore no statistics exist for it at all. For the remainder the census has another problem. Figures are made available on a ward by ward basis. Riverside ward includes Percy Main, parts of Meadow Well, Royal Quays, and East Howdon. Statistics broken down to community level are not available, nor do we have the resources to find them out. The local authority have taken this on board and the new Community Appraisals currently being developed will include information at both ward and community level.

The greatest temptation for any project is to chase the easiest targets. The decision was made by September 1999 that the project would concentrate on those communities within the target areas that had the least support, where existing agencies had failed to recruit and where the groups had no track record of running education/training provision. This meant, for instance, not following up our initial work in Meadow Well. The Meadow Well estate, famous for its riots, has had massive development input from a wide range of agencies over the last ten years and runs a wide range of education/training activities itself. Yet it is surrounded by a number of smaller communities, Percy Main, East Howdon, Chirton and Willington Quay that have had little or no input.

Barriers to participation

A number of issues emerged from work with initial learner groups. It was obvious from day one that all of the communities chosen had problems with:-

Image of education and training – by and large education was seen as ‘schooling’ with all the negative connotations that may have for those who failed as children
Jargon – education is riddled with jargon that might mean to lot to providers but just confuses potential learners. For example ‘education’ can be prefixed with: Adult, Continuing, Further, Vocational, Community, etc.
Mistrust of large institutions – Many of the communities have been promised support and resources in the past which have not been forthcoming. They mistrust all outsiders, perhaps justifiably, as wanting something from the community rather than giving something to it. In Benton, for example, the group initial comments to the project worker were "Are you another person who will promising us the earth, get what you want and then disappear leaving us back at square one?"
Existing provision – education is seen as not relevant (either middle-class or work related), not accessible (expensive and school related) and not enjoyable (classes are boring). Overall it is seen as being a way of keeping providers in work rather than offering individuals real benefits.
Childcare - is certainly a barrier to participation in learning activities for some people in some communities. As the project has a special childcare budget we presumed that any childcare problems could be overcome. However it has proved not the case. Having money is not enough. The first requirement is for a registered venue. Most of the centres we use are not registered and some are most reluctant to do so; possible from fear of the local authority having some control over them. Next we need access to registered crèche workers. Finally the end decision rests with the parent/guardian as to whether they will use a particular facility. A number have expressed concern over leaving their child with someone they do not know. In North Tyneside the local authority has created Childcare Enterprises, which provides crèche cover throughout the borough. Indeed we could not identify many alternative crèches and no mobile ones. Both Peoples Centres (Wallsend and North Shields) have crèches but this presents transport problems for those parents without access to a car. Using Childcare Enterprises is very expensive (as much as £60 for a two-hour session) but even this does not guarantee that they will have workers available. We have discussed the use of Childminders with groups but there is major concern as they are seen as not being trained, and some do not take children for short sessions. Other areas (e.g. Gateshead) have voluntary sector mobile crèche projects and we believe such a project is desperately needed in North Tyneside.

This lead us to the conclusion that:-

Although physical barriers may restrict access, the two major barriers are irrelevant provision from providers and the attitudes of non-learners. Unless providers make their provision more relevant and non-learners can change their opinions on how education can benefit them, participation will remain low.
It is of little surprise that mainstream formal courses do not recruit from these communities.
The image of education is very negative. We might think that the perception non-learners have of education is not correct but unless that image is changed few people will want to get involved.
To widen participation in disadvantaged communities we need to recognise where people are in their lives – what their priorities, needs and aspirations are and then link learning to it.
We need to help them develop activities that can form stepping stones towards formal learning starting from where they are now. If the jump from one step to the next is too large then people will stop progressing. The following steps might be required:-

The first step in the process is to get people active (i.e. to identify what motivates them whether hobbies, work, activities with their children, home improvements, personal development, sports, keep fit, environmental action, etc.)
The second step is to enable people to meet other people interested in or doing the same things not through the provision of classes but through informal social meetings and get-togethers
The third step is to facilitate the formation of learner groups with clear and agreed aims and objectives that meet both group and individual needs
The fourth step is for the learner groups to have identified or designed a learning programme that meets their learning needs
The fifth step is for the learner group to undertake its learning programme and, wherever possible, to gain recognition for having completed the process
The sixth step is to enable learners to identify for themselves what their next step is in meeting their own needs. This might involve a second round of the process or it might mean progression onto a mainstream course.

Few groups will be able to undertake this process without specialist support and guidance. The role of a special ‘Community Tutor’ is essential to help groups manage this process. Any mistake in moving the group too far, too fast, too slow or too formally will lose the trust of the group; who will immediately stop or even regress back to their starting point.

Many tutors undertaking this work will not be full-time employees of a college or local authority but be tutors employed on a sessional basis. The contracts offered to such staff need to reflect the specialist development learning needs analysis and course development work involved in this role. CLT has developed a new role of ‘Community Tutor’ that encompasses this role and pays staff at £18 per hour to undertake the work. It also will allow the tutor 2 hours to meet the group and carry out an initial learning needs analysis. Additional time is then allowed for learning programme development.

Levels of co-operation

An initial response from many public sector officers was that ‘another project’ was not necessary. This is a view that has persisted with some officers ever since. Indeed in June 199 we reported that "few people, especially from education/training providers, were willing to get actively involved in the project; most gave the excuse of overwork and asked ‘to be kept informed of progress’".

Officers within the local authority and other agencies seem mainly to fall into three camps, those who:-

verbally support the idea of the project but actually provide little or no practical support
openly accuse the project of duplication and provide little or no practical support
openly welcome a fresh approach and encourage and support our work.

Throughout the project’s development to date we have felt that existing fieldworkers, especially the local authority’s community partnership officers, were crucial in our overcoming initial suspicion from community groups. In March 1999 we reported that we had envisaged a high level of support from this group. We thought it quite possible that workers within the education and training field might be more suspicious and less co-operative but we felt that those involved in community development would welcome a project that sought to put more control in the hands of the community. Yet even at this early stage we reported that "they (community workers) referred us up the local authority hierarchy to obtain ‘permission’ for them to support our work. Although senior management had already pledged support this had not been passed down." At the time this was viewed as just being a problem of bureaucracy but it has become clear that it may in fact have been an example of workers using the bureaucracy to delay and obstruct our work.

In an attempt to create a vehicle for relevant local workers to have input into the project regular bi-monthly meetings have been held with up to 15 workers attending. These come mainly from a wide range of fieldworkers either from a community development, community economic development or adult education perspective. The meetings have been planned to bring workers up to date with project progress and address some of the issues highlighted by its work. The meetings have covered a range of topics including ‘the duplication of services’ and ‘the link between community education and community development’.

When asked for topics that they would like discussed it was interesting that five out of six who replied wanted to discuss the project ‘duplicating’ the work of existing agencies. The resulting debate, held in January 2000, resulted in a difference of opinion between local authority officers within two separate sections. One suggesting duplication should be removed as it is a waste of resources, and the other arguing that no two courses are exactly the same and thus will appeal to different audiences in the community; thus duplication is actually a red herring.

We were aware of the very low levels of interest within the communities in educational provision. From the start therefore we were very keen to respond to any positive response we received. This came from three of the communities in the form of a request for short ‘taster session’ on a range of topics so people could try them out. We responded by organising taster weeks using staff from the college for most of the sessions. This opened us up to accusations by other agencies that already ran ‘tasters’ that we were duplicating their provision. On reflection we believe that the groups were requesting tasters because they had come across them before. They were, in effect, choosing the one low risk, low involvement option they knew about. They wanted to respond positively to our suggestions and made the only response they could.

Information on learning

Little or know information at community level was available as the participation and attitudes towards learning within the communities. Accordingly we worked with a number of community groups (i.e. Meadow Well, East Howdon, Howdon, Percy Main, Royal Quays) to develop a basic questionnaire that would ascertain local priorities, needs and aspirations. The questionnaires were quite wide ranging. Meadow Well, although not one of our priority areas offered to pilot this work. However it appears that the volunteers were misled in how much time it would involve and many dropped out. Providing them with relevant knowledge and skills became increasingly difficult as the group reduced in size. The task was made more difficult when the group refused to deliver questionnaires door to door, would not interview people through focus groups, and decided to pass out questionnaires through the network of fieldworkers. Over 15 workers agreed to participate but in the end only three actually passed back completed questionnaires. This made the sample so small and unrepresentative that the results could not be relied upon.

This raised issues around:-

Being honest with learners about the activity and the time involvement required
The confidence of the people involved from the community and its effect on what they will be willing and able to do
Reliance on fieldworkers who already have high levels workloads and may not see the work as a high priority

Having met these problems we were much better planned for training groups doing a similar task in other communities. For example in Royal Quays over 1000 questionnaires were distributed of which 142 were returned including 28 who asked to be kept informed the research findings. Eleven of those have agreed to attend a meeting to discuss follow-up proposals. These are all people who have had no previous involvement in community activity. Our questionnaires have now been adopted as part of the local authority’s community appraisal process.

Attitude of community organisations

Community organisations are a reflection of their members. In common with others in the community their attitude to education is essentially negative. This may not appear in the form of open hostility but more a total indifference. All communities on first contact report no active involvement in education provision and see it as not being relevant to their activities. Indeed activities are seen as essentially social and having no educational role. However through discussions it is possible to get them to see that most activities involve considerable learning. By getting the group to identify the tasks they undertake and discuss how they know how to do each task it becomes clear to them that they are actually learning continually throughout their involvement. As these groups tend to take a leadership role within the community it is vitally important that they understand and accept the educational changes happening to themselves, the value that these changes have, and that they could easily take on the role of enabling such changes in other local people.

The problem is aggravated by the way groups are categorised by agencies (i.e. a Parent/Toddler Group is pigeon holed into only being involved in play activities for children, ignoring the potential for involving parents in learning activities). When we have tried to promote this wider role we have been accused by workers of persuading the group to change to becoming an ‘education or training group’. In some instances it has been quite hard for workers to accept that we wish only to raise the capacity of the group to act as a focus for local learning which is linked to their activities.

For many groups having their own building is a major focus. It is easy to understand in communities where large institutions control everything. To acquire something and then retain it is a major success. However this posses two problems: the group becomes fixated on the building to the exclusion of everything else, and the management of the building becomes a weight around their necks. The end result is that activities are organised not to meet the needs of local people but because it suites the building or is needed to raise money to pay for the buildings upkeep. In East Howdon the community fought hard to raise the money to replace an old hut with a new centre. This money was secured some five years ago. However the centre became a white elephant with few activities and even the ones organised are not supported. The main focus of the group is to bring the centre back into use yet they do not know how to do it. In Percy Main a similar situation arose with an old portakabin. The solution here was to link the community centre with the refurbishment of a local church to form a new parish hall. Now the new hall is open the group are only just realising the consequences of linking to a church. Some people will no longer attend their activities and there is a clear threat that they will lose their identity and become absorbed into church activities.

Accrediting the process

Although community volunteers can accept that a wide range of learning is connected to their activities it is much harder to accredit this. Indeed attempting to link existing qualifications to such work immediately has three effects: it imposes a formality on the process, it predetermines the learning agenda on the group, and it assumes that everyone in the group gets involved in everything. In reality different people within groups undertake different tasks. They also operate individually and in small groups, and they operate at different levels. Imposing a product led accreditation such as an NVQ predetermines the competencies they must have. People end up being asked to undertake tasks not because they are needed but purely to gain the qualification.

This might be appropriate within the employment field but we believe it is not within the voluntary field. What is required is a move to where accreditation follows the learners. Where it is not a national body or employer that identified the learning need but the learner himself or herself. We need accreditation that follows the process of learning undertaken by the learners. Where each learner in a group can learn, and be accredited for, the knowledge and skills they need to undertake the tasks they agree to undertake. Here they will learn what they need to learn. Their knowledge and skills can be accredited through the work they do. We can make the process enjoyable and relevant to them. The accreditation becomes a reward for learning: Something that hopefully the learner will want to do again and again.

Issues and activities for Year Two

Sustainability

There is little point in creating alternative learning opportunities if they are totally dependent on temporary funding. Whatever we create has to be sustainable in the longer-term. Fordham P., Fox J. & Muzaale P., ((1998) A Chance to Change: access, citizenship and sustainability in open learning, Leicester: NIACE), identified the following conditions required to create sustainable adult learning programmes:-

The programme addresses a real need.

There is clear evidence from college enrolments of the non-participation of large sections of the populations from the targeted wards. This means that they miss out on many opportunities for personal and collective advancement. CLT has identified a conflict between what is perceived as the learning need by different stakeholders. The aims of the funder or strategic planners may be driven by economic agendas connected to employment, whilst potential participants may not see this learning as addressing their needs.

It harmonises with the mission of the providing agency.

Many agencies are being tempted to provide learning activities which does not fit easily with their mission just to secure funding or achieve otherwise unachievable outputs. Yet in the context of this project it is vital that agencies are fully committed to the empowerment of the learner and are willing to pass on real power over the curriculum.

It is permitted or tolerated by the controlling authorities.

Programmes that are seen to challenge or threaten the position of an authority might not be allowed to proceed if the authority has any control over the providing agency. It is clearly recognised and accepted by the CLT partners that this may be one of the results of the project’s work. We are already seeing group confidence levels rise to the point where they will soon question the level and method of support provided to them. They will want to go it alone, to take control over their environment. There is concern within the project over how other agencies will react when this happens. Will they see it as positive and provide additional support or will they find it threatening and attempt to suppress it. These communities are so disadvantaged that they could not afford to sustain activities without external financial support.

It secures sufficient financial support

Provision must be structured in ways that are acceptable to funders, not just within a pilot project but within mainstream mechanisms. We are already, with a year to go, getting learner groups questioning what will happen to their learning programmes when the project is completed. There seems to be an automatic assumption, perhaps based on past experience, that mainstream provision will not pick up the funding of such an alternative approach. They expect it to be another example of them being given something that they want and then having it snatched away again. Mainstream funding with the same flexibility of that provided to the project will be required to carry forward the work.

It is organised, promoted and taught by staff with a clear understanding and acceptance of the providing agencies mission and the required professional competence

CLT has experienced directly the results of using staff who do not understand the projects overall approach. Some sessional staff have found it difficult to understand the project’s ‘informal learning’ approach and attempted to continue to use formal delivery techniques. Our staff members are not ‘trainers’ or ‘teachers’ but ‘tutors’ who use techniques more normally associated with community or youth work. Professional competence within further education is normally defined by the tutor holding an appropriate training and development NVQ3 type award (e.g. City & Guilds 7306). We now question the appropriateness of this within our work although we accept the 730 as a base level qualification. It was designed to prepare people to deliver vocational training courses and its content and scope is rightly linked to that end. Accordingly CLT has supported an initiative from the local Association of Part-time Tutors to develop a professional development programme for tutors working within community education. It is hoped that this whole programme, accredited in five modules by the North East Open College Network at level 3 will be in place by December 2000.

It attracts participants in sufficient numbers

It seems to be an accepted practice within mainstream adult education that classes are cancelled if the do not recruit minimum numbers. In one instance very early on in the project we contacted an adult education venue within one of the targeted communities and asked how many of their courses were operating, having seen a list of 18 or so. None was the reply; "none of them could recruit the required minimum of ten people". We started supporting a group in Benton with only four participants. Within a month this grew to eight and after three months to fifteen. Ordinarily this would have been cancelled before it started. This raises two issues for us: not restricting numbers on day one, and that the informal approach resulted in not course drop-out but a virtual quadrupling of numbers. Starting with small numbers might be expensive initially but numbers can be achieved and provision can be cost effective in the long run

Its curriculum is seen as relevant to the needs and interests of the various stakeholders

Current funding steers provision towards economic objectives and work related training. This will succeed in attracting those learners for whom such provision is directly relevant. Indeed, those who can access it and find it suits their aspirations and learning style can flourish and achieve great things. However if we are to widen participation to include those for whom this type of provision is irrelevant then a shift in emphasis from the supply side to demand side of the provision is required. Providers must be funded to deliver what particular client groups require; one type of provision will never be enough.

It deploys an adequate range of learning materials

Developing provision that meets the needs of the learner rather than a prescribed course puts pressure not just on the tutor staff but on having access to the right learning materials and equipment. It is much easier to plan resource allocations when a whole years course programme is known in advance and the relevant materials bought in. CLT have developed a system that allows the tutor not just to negotiate a learning programme with the learner group that meets their group and individual learning needs but forms the basis for the acquisition of relevant learning materials. It is accepted that this puts both financial and organisational strain on programme providers as learners expect their learning programme to start very quickly after this process is completed. Resources must be made available to allow learner groups to access the learning materials they need to carry out their agreed learning programmes.

The teaching is carefully matched to the educational background and capabilities of the participants

The normal approach to education planning is be to identify the potential audience, identify an appropriate qualification approved by the DfEE, purchase or develop a course that leads to that qualification, and then offer it to that audience. If it is successful it will then be offered over and over again so long as demand is sufficiently high to make the course cost-effective. This works extremely well within the vocational arena. However community based learning needs to operate totally differently. There is no employer or lead body that can determine what the learner needs to know. The tutor will not know the learning objectives until they have met the group and discussed their requirements. They then need to work with the group to develop a learning programme that will meet those requirements in ways and at levels appropriate to that learner group. The learning programme they create needs to ensure that both group and individual needs are met. This takes considerable time and specialist knowledge.

The learning environment is appropriate for both learner and curricula

The CLT approach puts the learner in control of the learning. They can, with the tutor’s support, determine the learning content, learning methods and also the learning venue and timing. It is up to the Community Tutor to ensure that the learning environment meets the needs of the curriculum. This includes health and safety requirements, and appropriate access to equipment and materials. It may also cover access to childcare if appropriate. The objective is to enable the learner group to undertaken the learning in an environment that is accessible and comfortable; one with which they identify. Learning must be taken to the learner; the learner must not be expected to come to the learning.

Implications for stakeholders of issues identified

The Project

During the last year CLT has controlled because it has contracted with providers. It has attempted to allow the learners an element of control over their own programme. They can select, within given financial constraints, any venue, anytime, and any mode of delivery that they believe appropriate. They can select any provider they wish, within given financial constraints, who will undertake to deliver the learning programme agreed with the Community Tutor. These are negotiated in partnership with their Community Tutor. They are of course free to change Community Tutor at any time. Indeed many groups build up such a relationship with the Community Tutor that they seek to have them deliver all their programmes. It is felt however that this is not the best way forward in the majority of cases. For example, in Benton the Project Co-ordinator acts as Community Tutor. The IT element of their learning programme has been provided by a combination of North Tyneside College and Longbenton Community College. The first aid element by North Tyneside College. The Keep Fit by a local person, and the Arts and Crafts by a freelance Tutor. This can only be achieved if the funding rests not with the provider but with the learner group itself.

This principle of allowing the learner access to their own budget, used successfully within Individual Learning Accounts, would require a radical shift in the way education is funded. We are not suggesting that this should be done with all courses, only with community based informal learning projects targeted at widening participation in disadvantaged communities.

The new learner centred informal learning approach developed by the project has implications at many levels and to many different stakeholders. Year two of the project will need to provide strong evidence on the appropriateness and success of this approach so agencies can determine how they can respond to it. If it is to be adopted it will only be with the support and positive encouragement of all major players.

Funders

Appropriate funding will be essential to take this work forward. The changes proposed to amalgamate the TECs and FEFC to form the new regional Skill Councils is too new at this stage to know how they intend to fund education for adults. Nevertheless there will be a need to identify funding to continue the work and perhaps extend it to other disadvantaged communities.

However as the project is already demonstrating the strong link between educational development and community development special funding will be required to undertake:-

Community capacity building so community organisations can take a lead in the development and delivery of learning within their community
Establishing learning facilities in community centres, social clubs so they can take on a more pro-active role in learning rather than purely hosting provision
Promotion and public awareness raising activities including supporting/sponsoring community activities, newsletters and accessing informal community networks
Development of learner groups around a wide range of topics of relevance to local people
Undertaking of group and individual learning needs analysis and learning guidance
Creating and managing customised learning programmes to meet the needs identified
Helping learners identifying and overcome barriers to their participation
Providing support for learners to identify and access progression routes that match their aspirations
Continuing the recruitment, development, training and support of Community Tutors, Learning Activity Support Assistants, and Volunteer Community Education Workers.

Success will not only depend on what is funded but how the funding is made available. Whoever controls the purse strings will control delivery.

Policy makers

A clear acceptance of the need to change existing provision to accommodate community led informal learning will be essential. The community organisation and individual learners cannot be expected to operate within an environment that seeks to centralise control. Policy makers need to give a lead in the acceptance of the community as a significant partner in lifelong learning. One to be involved in the development and application of policy not just to be ‘consulted’ on it.

Given such a clear policy lead, appropriate funding can be used to steer provision away from centralised control. Passing over control to community organisations is not an easy task and requires high levels of capacity and trust. Policy makers will need to ensure that the sometimes conflicting requirements of all stakeholders from funders through to learners are accommodated.

Strategic plans will need to be developed or extended to give a higher emphasis on lifelong learning and widening participation in particular. North Tyneside has already acknowledged the role informal learning can play within ‘Regaining the joy of learning’. It will have to find ways that relevant objectives and targets can be set, and work with other stakeholders undertaken to create mechanisms through which they can be achieved.

Awarding bodies

The vast majority of qualifications are product based directly relevant to the needs of employers. These need to be complemented by qualifications that reward the learning process that individuals undertake. The CLT approach requires learner determined learning outcomes. Qualifications are required that follow those outcomes. As learners will be different, even when working within a group situation, their learning outcomes will be different. It would be impossible to attempt to determine product learning outcomes before the process begins. The qualification framework must therefore be based on the only thing the learners will have in common; the learning process they go through.

The project has identified that existing qualifications are not just irrelevant to non-learners but are in themselves a barrier to participation. Any new qualification framework will need to identify and seek to overcome the causes of this. It should not just be about changing attitudes to qualifications (making people understand how good they are) but changing them to make them relevant to the learner. Most learners once they have a success under their belt start to chase others. Assessment methods must be chosen that are a natural pat of the learning process and not an administrative add-on that seems to bear no reality to the individual’s actual learning.

The existing funding approach relies on the awarding body to provide quality control. This will need to remain if funders are to have confidence in the overall approach. However we cannot automatically assume that verifiers and moderators will automatically understand this new approach. Training and support from the awarding bodies will be required.

Providers

Support to the new approach from education providers will be essential if the process is to more than just a marginal activity within the education of adults. Providers will need to have access to appropriate resources with which to undertake this approach. This extends from appropriately skilled staff to appropriate learning materials. They must be prepared whether large educational institutions or freelance sessional tutors to tailor their subject expertise to the benefit of the learner in the way the learners require. They will be accountable to the Community Tutor and Learner Group collectively. They must recognise this different relationship and be prepared to work within it.

The most difficult for them will be the presumed loss of power and autonomy within the new framework. Up to now a provider can select which combination of courses or qualifications they wish to deliver. This will depend on their expertise and access to relevant equipment. They organise the course content and delivery mechanisms. If they have done their marketing research effectively there will be sufficient demand for the course to make it cost effective. Under the new framework they must be totally committed to responding to the learning needs of each group of learners. They must be flexible in course delivery. To deliver when, where and how the learners require.

Community Organisations

It is quite clear that as community organisations mirror the community they are based in, it is not unsurprising that they had, on meeting project staff for the first time, little or no interest in education. Yet they can become, as has been demonstrated by the project already, a major focus for collective and individual development.

They must be willing to reassess their role and take on board that activities which appears on the surface to be ‘social’ in nature have as much an educational role as a social one. Before they can be expected to take on a lead role in promoting learning activities however they need to acquire the ‘feel good about learning’ factor; they need to become active learners themselves.

They must also be committed to a partnership approach to the provision of learning. They cannot do it alone. This means working alongside much larger institutions such as a college or local authority. The organisations must seek ways to overcome mistrust of these institutions. Changes within the institutions themselves to be more open, taking on an enabling rather than controlling role, will help.

Community Tutors

We cannot assume that learners can automatically take control of their own learning. They will need specialist support to identify and manage their learning programmes. The Community Tutor is the focal pin around which everything else moves. They act as guide, signpost, mentor, and advisor to the group. They will keep the group moving when they become disheartened and slow them down when they get carried away. They will arbitrate when things go wrong with providers. They will interface on assessment and accreditation issues. Overall they will act as the access mechanism to resourcing for the learning programme.

This will put a tremendous pressure on the Community Tutor. They are managers of learning. They are the expert who can help the group identify their own leaning needs. They must be able to make learning an adventure; being creative in finding ways of providing learning that are relevant, accessible and enjoyable. They will enable the group to take ever increasing control over their own learning from early on when they do almost all the organising through to where they no longer are needed, the group does it all itself.

The learners are learning to learn, learning to organise, learning to manage. Throughout this process the Community Tutor will fulfil a crucial role different to any within mainstream education. They will need to have the strength to know when to bring in specialist providers even though they may be losing work for themselves. They must know when it is the time to let the group go; when they have done as much as they can for the group.

Learners

The new framework is a radical departure from existing education and training provision that it will require extensive marketing. Learners will misunderstand and mistrust it. They will seek a list of courses; they will assume minimum numbers of learners. They will assume the tutor is the expert who will control course venue and content. They will seek to be accountable to the tutor. Finding none of these apply they will look for the hidden catch. They, who ignore existing provision because of its irrelevance and lack of accessibility, will question the quality of the new provision.

Proposed Activity to March 2001

The following activities were initially planned for the period to 31 March 2001: -

By 30 June 2000

By 31 October 2000

Identify business plan(s) for three-year work programme for the new co-operative
Produce and submit grant applications
Develop project exit strategy and final project evaluation process

By 31 December 2000

All learning programmes completed
Work transferred to new charitable cop-operative

By 31 March 2001

Exit strategy completed
Final evaluation process complete
Final report produced.

In order that the project can get as close as possible to achieving the project’s aims it is proposed that a series of secondary aims be set for the second year as follows:-

To counteract the negative image of education held by many adults within the targeted communities
To bring together groups of adults within disadvantaged communities through local community organisations to develop and undertake learning activities
To enable groups of learners to identify their own learning needs
To enable those learners to develop informal learning opportunities to meet those needs
To involve learners in the ownership and control of the project and its work.

The following section lists these aims together with relevant objectives and targets. It also gives details of achievements to date and activities planned for 2000/01.

Aims, objectives overall targets, achievements and targets to March 2001

To achieve the projects overall aims, a series of new objectives and targets are proposed below for the remainder of the project. These will build on the first year’s achievements.

Aim

Objectives

Overall targets

Achievements in 1999/00

Targets for 2000/01

1 To encourage a more positive perception of education and its relevance to adults within the targeted communities.

a To undertake research into public attitudes towards education and how it might be made more relevant to their needs

Undertake community research across a sample of communities by December 1999

Research undertaken in three communities completed by December 1999. Analysis started January 2000.

Complete analysis

Incorporate research findings into planning process by March 2000

Findings used to inform work with individual learner groups and the overall project evaluation process.

Undertake in-depth case study research into attitudinal barriers by December 2000

Planning underway for in-depth case studies from March 2000. Fieldwork scheduled for September to December 2000.

Publish findings of the project and its work by March 2001

Work on creating project web site started December 1999.

Project reports published on web site from April 2000.

b To distribute information and examples of successful learning and positive role models which promote more relevant aspects of education within the targeted communities.

Initiate Community Learning Newsletter Project by February 2000

Learner Group Forum agreed to support Newsletter Project January 2000.

Recruit volunteers to oversee newsletter by March 2000

Two volunteers recruited to undertake Newsletter preparation, layout and DTP work February 2000.

Further volunteers to be recruited as required.

Develop and distribute first issue of newsletter by April 2000

Learner Groups creating own content to be submitted by 17 March 2000.

First issue to be published by 31 March 2000.

Pass over responsibility to Learners Forum by June 2000

Learner Forum agree to take over responsibility - January 2000 meeting

Create newsletter editorial committee by June 2000

c To organise activities and events to raise public awareness and attract involvement by targeted groups

Recruit promotion field worker covering three communities by April 2000

One sessional fieldworker recruited for 16 hours per week for 17 weeks in Benton as a pilot from 6 March 2000.

Request received from East Howdon and Percy Main groups for fieldworkers received March 2000.

Create pool of five Volunteer Learning Support Workers by May 2000 and 15 by September 2000

Target set for Benton fieldworker to recruit 3 volunteers by May and 5 by July 2000
Similar targets for other worker.

Aims

Objectives

Overall targets

Achievements in 1999/00

Targets for 2000/01

2 To bring together groups of adults within disadvantaged communities through local community organisations to develop and undertake learning activities

a To identify communities with the lowest rates of participation within Further Education

Agree eight targeted communities by September 1999

September 1999
Eight communities identified as: Benton, Holy Cross/Orde Avenue, Percy Main, East Howdon, Willington Quay, Royal Quays, Howdon, Chirton.
Moorside and Meadow Well included as pilot areas.

b To identify groups of adults within these communities who do not participate within mainstream education

Create initial learner groups by September 1999 involving 20 learners

Initial learner groups est. by September 1999:-

Meadow Well – 10 learners
Moorside – 8 learners
Benton – 8 learners
Holy Cross/Orde Ave - 8 learners

Total involved September 1999 – 34 learners

Create one learner group within all eight communities by March 2000 involving 80 learners

Create average of two learner groups within all eight targeted communities by September 2000 involving 190 learners

No of learners within groups having not participated in formal learning within previous three years – 80%

Learner groups est. by March 2000:-

Benton – 12 learners in community centre.

Holy Cross - 9 learners in the comm. centre.

Percy Main – 29 learners based within a women’s group and an arts and crafts group.

East Howdon – 10 learners in women’s group

Willington Quay – 14 learners in three groups centred on the local boat club, a local community centre, and a health group for men.

Royal Quays – 9 learners in arts/crafts group

Howdon – 8 learners

Chirton – 0 learners

Meadow Well – 10 learners

Total involved by March 2000 – 109 learners

Percentage of those not having done any learning in last three years – 40%

Total learner numbers to be achieved by December 2000:-

Benton – 24 learners

Holy Cross - 16 learners

Percy Main – 30 learners

East Howdon – 20 learners

Willington Quay – 20 learners

Royal Quays – 30 learners

Howdon – 25 learners

Chirton – 25 learners

Overall Target – 190 learners

Target percentage of those not having done any learning in last three years – 60%

Aims

Objectives

Overall targets

Achievements in 1999/00

Targets for 2000/01

3 To enable groups of learners to identify their own learning needs

a Introduce a learning needs analysis process to help learners identify their own learning needs and how those needs will be met.

Create a learning needs analysis process by March 2000

New process and documentation in place for trials to start March 2000.
Training of 10 Tutors in Learning Needs Analysis completed February 2000. Eight completed NEOCN qualification (2 units at level 3)

Pilot the process with three learning groups by April 2000

Trials due to be completed May 2000.

Adopt the process throughout the project from May 2000

Quality control system developed

Peter Leggott appointed Internal Verifier October 1999. Quality control systems in place for non-accredited programmes March 2000.

Extend quality assurance/control system to all project activities, including sessional tutors from May 2000

b To provide access to the resources, especially trained Community Tutors, required to help groups through that process

Identify an initial group of ten specialist community tutors to help learning groups undertake the learning needs analysis process by April 2000

Specialist Sessional Community Tutor role identified January 2000. Initial pool of 10 tutors being trained February 2000.

Recruitment of further Sessional Community Tutors starting March/April 2000.

Train and accredit (level 3) a pool of 20 Community Tutors to take on this enabling and support role by July 2000

Ten Tutors completing LNA training due to progress to Course Design training from March 2000 to be completed June 2000 (2 units level 3).
Second intake of 10 trainees on LNA expected to start March/April 2000.

Expand the Community Tutor Pool to 40 by December 2000

Aims

Objectives

Overall targets

Achievements in 1999/00

Targets for 2000/01

4 To enable those learners to develop informal learning opportunities to meet those needs

a To provide specialist support to the groups to develop informal learning activities

Community Tutors start work with 20 learners to develop appropriate learning programmes by April 2000

Community Tutors working with learner groups in six communities by March 2000.

b To help groups identify and overcome barriers to their participation

Identify major structural, attitudinal and cultural barriers to participation by December 1999

Desk research completed December 1999.

Develop mechanisms to enable learner groups to address the barriers relevant to the individuals within them by April 2000

Free courses provided.
Problems with childcare provision
Image of education seen negatively
Negative attitude to education and training

Newsletter and Promotion fieldwork to address attitudinal and cultural barriers.
Further work on childcare provision required

c To provide access to resources to enable learner groups to undertake their learning programmes

Provide Community Tutors to work with learner groups to organise and undertake appropriate learning activities

Community Tutors produced learning activity programmes for the six learner groups – March 2000.

Train 30 tutors in learning needs analysis and learning programme design
Train 15 Peer tutors from within the communities to provide learning support

Create access to Specialist Tutors to assist Community Tutors organise activities

Problems identifying tutors able to do short sessions with groups. Providers reluctant to share sessional tutor details..

Peer tutoring course due to start January 2000. Insufficient numbers meant start delayed until April 2000.

Develop NEOCN accreditation relevant to informal learning process by April 2000

Scheme of Work commissioned Feb 2000.
Draft received March 2000.

d To help groups of learners progress to further and more structured learning

Pilot the accreditation scheme by July 2000 involving 20 learners

Pilot due to start May 2000.
In place for all learners from September 2000

Adopt the accreditation by September 2000 for 60 learners

Identify ‘Scratch’ programmes for 60 existing learners between Easter and Summer

50 learners achieve level 1 accreditation by December 2000

50 learners complete ‘Scratch’ programme relevant to their needs at level 1

Develop links to mainstream programmes

Links built with college outreach projects.

Identify progression routes from ‘Scratch’ programmes

Aims

Objectives

Overall targets

Achievements in 1999/00

Targets for 2000/01

5 To involve learners in the ownership and control of the project and its work

a To develop a forum for representatives from learner groups to meet together

Bring together representatives of learner groups to meet on a regular basis by December 1999

November meeting attracted 5 representatives. January meeting (13 attended) agreed to organise newsletter and a residential.

Identify activities to be undertaken by the forum by March 2000

February meeting (16 attended) created sub-committee formed to organise residential.

b To formalise the forum into a learner owned and controlled organisation

Obtain approval to create the forum as an independent organisation by July 2000

Name and structure of the Forum due to be discussed at March meeting as a prelude to fund-raising for the residential.

Name, constitution and structure to be agreed at May meeting.

The organisation adopts new structure by August 2000

Programme developed for 2001 at Group residential in August 2000.
Training provided to groups to participate in new project partnership from January 2001.

c To encourage the forum organisation to participate in project management meetings

Project Management representative to attend Forum meeting in April 2000

Informal meeting in April suggested as forum members lack confidence in attending a formal meeting.

Forum representative to attend Project Management meetings from May 2000

Forum representative to attend Project Management meetings from May 2000

d To provide funding and support to take forward the work of the project into 2001

Partners to discuss work from 2001 onwards by April 2000

Regular meetings involving all community groups to discuss activity post 2000 from April 2000

Develop project proposals and project exit strategy - July 2000

Funding strategy in place by July 2000

Submit funding package for 2001 by August 2000

All funding applications submitted by August 2000

Secure project funding for 2001 by December 2000

Hand-over to new project partnership as at 1 January 2001

CLT to support new project infrastructure until March 2001

Project Co-ordinator to provide project support for three months to ensure effective hand-over and overcome initial teething problems

Appendix One – Proposed NIACE/ACLF Budgets for year Two (2000/01)

Expenditure Category

AprtoJun 00

JultoSep 00

OcttoDec 00

JantoMar 01

Year

Salaries

4000

4000

4000

4000

16000

Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Staff travel & Subs

125

125

125

125

500

Practical trainee support

3000

3000

1500

0

7500

Admin & office expenses

1500

1000

1000

500

4000

Premises

500

250

500

250

1500

Accreditation costs

1000

0

1000

0

2000

Learning materials

1500

1000

1500

0

4000

Publicity/Recruitment

1000

1000

250

0

2250

Learning Support Grp trg

1500

500

500

0

2500

Vol Learn Sup Worker trg

750

500

500

0

1750

Community group training

1000

1000

1000

0

3000

Project total

15875

12375

11875

4875

45000

Aim	Objectives	Overall targets	Achievements in 1999/00	Targets for 2000/01
1 To encourage a more positive perception of education and its relevance to adults within the targeted communities.	a To undertake research into public attitudes towards education and how it might be made more relevant to their needs	Undertake community research across a sample of communities by December 1999	Research undertaken in three communities completed by December 1999. Analysis started January 2000.	Complete analysis
		Incorporate research findings into planning process by March 2000		Findings used to inform work with individual learner groups and the overall project evaluation process.
		Undertake in-depth case study research into attitudinal barriers by December 2000		Planning underway for in-depth case studies from March 2000. Fieldwork scheduled for September to December 2000.
		Publish findings of the project and its work by March 2001	Work on creating project web site started December 1999.	Project reports published on web site from April 2000.
	b To distribute information and examples of successful learning and positive role models which promote more relevant aspects of education within the targeted communities.	Initiate Community Learning Newsletter Project by February 2000	Learner Group Forum agreed to support Newsletter Project January 2000.
		Recruit volunteers to oversee newsletter by March 2000	Two volunteers recruited to undertake Newsletter preparation, layout and DTP work February 2000.	Further volunteers to be recruited as required.
		Develop and distribute first issue of newsletter by April 2000	Learner Groups creating own content to be submitted by 17 March 2000.	First issue to be published by 31 March 2000.
		Pass over responsibility to Learners Forum by June 2000	Learner Forum agree to take over responsibility - January 2000 meeting	Create newsletter editorial committee by June 2000
	c To organise activities and events to raise public awareness and attract involvement by targeted groups	Recruit promotion field worker covering three communities by April 2000	One sessional fieldworker recruited for 16 hours per week for 17 weeks in Benton as a pilot from 6 March 2000.	Request received from East Howdon and Percy Main groups for fieldworkers received March 2000.
		Create pool of five Volunteer Learning Support Workers by May 2000 and 15 by September 2000		Target set for Benton fieldworker to recruit 3 volunteers by May and 5 by July 2000 Similar targets for other worker.


Expenditure Category	AprtoJun 00	JultoSep 00	OcttoDec 00	JantoMar 01	Year
Salaries	4000	4000	4000	4000	16000
Equipment	0	0	0	0	0
Staff travel & Subs	125	125	125	125	500
Practical trainee support	3000	3000	1500	0	7500
Admin & office expenses	1500	1000	1000	500	4000
Premises	500	250	500	250	1500
Accreditation costs	1000	0	1000	0	2000
Learning materials	1500	1000	1500	0	4000
Publicity/Recruitment	1000	1000	250	0	2250
Learning Support Grp trg	1500	500	500	0	2500
Vol Learn Sup Worker trg	750	500	500	0	1750
Community group training	1000	1000	1000	0	3000
Project total	15875	12375	11875	4875	45000