Government plans to make employers pay for up to a third of the training for 16 to 18 apprenticeships could hit the age group’s already-falling uptake, the National Audit Office (NAO) has warned.

It said the number of apprenticeship starts among 16 to 18-year-olds, which fell from 129,900 in 2011/12 to 114,500 in 2012/13, could fall further if “risks” caused by reforms were not managed by the Department for Education (DfE).

Under the current pilot, the government has said that although employers would have to pay their contributions upfront, it could be possible for them to earn back some or all the money in the form of a one-off payment of between £600 and £5,400 for every 16 to 18-year-old recruited and a payment of between £500 and £2,700 for apprentices, regardless of age, who complete their training.

An extra incentive up to £2,700 could be made available to businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

However, the NAO isssued its warning about the effect of the reforms in a report entitled 16-18-year old participation in education and trianing, which was released today. The report makes reference to the slump in apprenticeship starts and calls for action to deal with the risks involved in the reforms.

The report says: “These statistics show that, as they develop their apprenticeship reforms, the two departments [Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Education] will need to manage potential risks to the overall participation rate.

“Longer apprenticeships, in the context of reduced funding, might lead to fewer apprenticeships in total, which, in turn, could reduce overall participation.

“In addition, the government currently pays the full cost of training 16- to 18-year‑old apprentices, but announced in 2013 that this will change. By 2016, employers will have to contribute towards their apprentices’ training costs (apart from the costs of English and maths study).”

It added: “The government plans to cap the maximum level of its funding for each apprentice and give providers funding using payment by results. The government is trialling a funding model in 2014/15 for apprenticeship starts on new employer-designed standards, including an additional incentive payment for each 16to 18-year-old recruited.

“Through these reforms the government is aiming to make employers ‘co-investors’ in apprenticeships and customers of training, which it considers will incentivise them to take more responsibility for improving quality. However, employers do not have to have apprentices and there is a risk that fewer may do so if they have to meet the training costs themselves or perceive the process to be a burden.”

The report echoes the concerns about the reforms raised by various organisations, including the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).

Responding to the NAO’s report, AELP chief executive Stewart Segal said: “The NAO has signalled its concern about 16 to 18 participation in apprenticeships which reflects what employers have been saying to our members.

“The proposed requirement of employer cash contributions for apprentices of all ages removes the principle of training for the 16 to 18 age group being fully funded and AELP believes that the number of apprenticeship opportunities for young people will fall substantially if the requirement is implemented.

“Employers already make a major investment in apprenticeships for young people and we need to recognise that routing funding through employers and mandatory cash contributions will reduce the opportunities for young people.”

The education select committee is due to look at why there have been falls in 16 to 18 apprenticeships and a spokesperson told FE Week that oral evidence would probably begin at the end of October or in early November.

It will come with 16 to 18 apprenticeships three months ago having shown their first first year-on-year rise for the third quarter (Q3) of the academic year since 2010/11. However, the NAO report looked at full year figures, which fell.

Plans to make employers pay a contribution were first revealed in April in a technical consultation document. The results of the consultation are due to be published in the autumn.

The DfE did not comment before this story went to print. Visit the FE Week website later this week for their full response.

A troubled provider which has been struggling to get courses certificated has been approved by a new awarding body to support 500 of the more than 30,000 paying learners affected.

As reported last week, the awarding organisation (AO) NCFE stopped certificating Rotherham-based provider My Distance Learning College (MDLC) claiming it had around £20,000 of “outstanding invoices owing”.

Similarly, the Cache (Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education) AO also withdrew approved status because, it claimed, the provider had been re-selling its qualifications through other firms without permission.

But FE Week can reveal that Training Qualifications UK (TQUK) has today approved MDLC as a provider for its  level three qualification and credit framework (QCF) award and certificate in supporting teaching and learning in schools.

MDLC director Joshua Cole, who disputes the claims made by NCFE and Cache, said this meant that more than 500 students currently awaiting certification from NCFE for equivalent courses could now be certificated by TQUK for no extra charge.

An MDLC spokesperson said: “We are able to announce that we have been approved by one of the most progressive and credible awarding organisations in the UK.

“TQUK is one of only a handful of awarding organisations that have got through the updated (and, arguably, the toughest) Ofqual approval processes in the last couple of years.

“TQUK will pick up and certificate any successful learners on the supporting teaching and learning award and certificate programs that may have fallen into the gap left by NCFEs untimely withdrawal of support, and will take up any slack affected by the fallout.”

TQUK became an approved AO in September 2013 and currently has 74 qualification on the Ofqual register.

The Manchester-based awarding body announced in April that South Cheshire College had become the first FE college to become a TQUK-approved centre, after registering learners for its level three award in education and training.

This came a month after TQUK announced that Richard Dorrance (pictured), former chief executive of Cache and acting chief executive of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council (the precursor of Ofqual), had been appointed as chair of its governing board.

A spokesperson for TQUK said: “TQUK has, this morning, approved MDLC as a centre. MDLC has completed the centre approval process which all of our centres go through.

“This involves extensive checks on the processes and procedures that are in place at the centre and pays particular attention to the quality assurance arrangements.

“We are absolutely confident in the centre’s ability and commitment to providing these qualifications in line with our requirements and will continue, as we do with all of our centres, to monitor this.”

She added TQUK was fully aware of MDLC’s dispute with NCFE and Cache.

She said: “We spoke to both awarding organisations about their concerns and they confirmed to us that the issues were not around quality of provision or integrity of assessment for QCF qualifications.

“We now have arrangements in place to manage our own working relationship with the centre moving forwards.

“Most important to us is that we are able to play a part in providing certification for candidates where their hard work and dedication has earned it.”

She added the awarding body would not be endorsing any other MDLC courses.

When asked if MDLC would be legally entitled to transfer learners who had originally paid for the equivalent NCFE qualification to the TQUK course, an Ofqual spokesperson said: “Yes, another awarding organisation is allowed to certificate the work carried out by the students, but only providing it meets the requirements of their qualification.

“As part of our conditions of recognition, all awarding organisations are required to make sure that their training providers are delivering their qualifications properly, including all assessments being carried out in accordance with the requirements.”

NCFE and Cache declined to comment.

Two FE bodies have warned that the low take-up of 24+ loans shows the scheme should not be extended until more is known about their impact.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and the National Institute for Continuing Adult Education (Niace) both said the advanced learner loan statistics, released today, should make the government reconsider proposals it has put out to consultation to extend loans to 19 to 24-year-olds and level two adult learners.

The number of applications for 24+ advanced learning loans for the next academic year remains well below figures for the same period last year.

The number of for July was 8,460, down from 10,772 for July last year, a fall of 21 per cent.

The figures also a reveal a 21 per cent drop in the total number of applications received so far for the 2014/15 academic year compared to last year — between the process opening in April and July 31, 15,080 applications were made, down from 19,096 in the same period for 2013/14.

Martin Doel, AoC chief executive, said: “Loans are still a new innovation and for many potential students, especially those on low incomes, taking out a loan is a big step.

“Variations from month to month and year to year are probably inevitable and that’s why Government should properly assess how loans are working before extending them to younger students on level two qualifications.”

Loans can be taken out to cover the cost of a level three course for learners over the age of 23 who do not already have a level three qualification.

The government’s consultation on plans to extend loans to those aged 19 to 14 and those studying level two courses closed last week, with the government response expected to be published in November.

Dr Fiona Aldridge, NIACE assistant director for development and research, said: “It is vitally important that we continue to track learner appetite for loans. It is essential for the future well-being of our economy that we have people qualified to fill skills gaps and shortages.

“We need to know the impact of loans on who is able to access learning and what learning is on offer.

“These latest figures reinforce the key message of our response to the current loans consultation — it is imperative that there is a clear understanding of the impact of the introduction of 24+ Advanced Learning Loans before any new measures are implemented to extend them.”

As reported in FE Week last month, the government defended the low figures for loan applications in July (1,270, down from 2,916 for the same period last year), saying it was expecting a late summer rush of people applying for loans, as they prepared to start courses in September.

The number of applications between June and July this year did increase from 1,270 in June to 8,460 in July, however, the rush was not enough to bring applications up to the level of last year.

The proposed expansion of the FE loans system to cover to cover level two qualifications and also younger learners could hit participation levels, the Association for Colleges (AoC) and the Association for Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have both warned.

The associations have issued separate responses to the government’s consultation on extending the 24+ advanced learning loan system — but they harboured the same concerns that the proposals could affect learner numbers.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking to include qualifications at level two, as well as level three from the age of 19, and its consultation closed last week.

Loans for learners aged 24 and over at level three and above were introduced in August 2013, replacing the previous system where the government paid half the course fees, while the learner paid their half  upfront. With a loan, the learner pays all course costs, albeit over the lifetime of the loan.

But the AELP’s consultation response warned that “any reduction in eligibility for full or co-funding will reduce participation in learning.”

It continued: “For many of these groups, particularly the low skilled, people who are unemployed and prisoners, this reduction in investment will be very costly in the long term for both the state and for these individuals.

“For many of these learners taking a loan under conditions will not be a suitable alternative so this will inevitably shift resources from those who need it most to those who might be prepared to take the commitment of a loan.”

The AoC response said precautions would have to be taken to prevent potential learners from being discouraged by the loans.

Its response said: “We agree with the plan to extend the loan system by age group and level but on certain conditions.”

The conditions included allowing courses to remain free for students on benefits and for those taking courses in the lowest level qualifications and maintaining funding for high-cost courses such as science, technology, engineering and maths.

The AoC response also warned that the extension should only be “taken forward when SLC [Student Loans Company] and SFA [Skills Funding Agency] systems are ready”.

Both associations said it was difficult to predict learners’ responses to loans as the current system had only been in place for a year.

However, AoC and AELP warned that learners at level two may not benefit enough from the qualification to make it worth taking out the loan.

The AoC response said: “A larger share of economic returns for level three courses go to individuals (via higher pay) whereas many of the economic returns for level two courses go to the organisations who employ them (eg care workers do not get pay increases when they achieve statutory level two courses but their employer retains the ability to stay in business).”

Even if learners did take out a loan, AoC added, the relatively small economic benefits meant they might never hit the £21,000 earning threshold to pay it back.

The AELP response said: “The government must put sufficient controls in place to avoid problems in FE similar to those identified by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in its recent report on loans in HE, which found that inaccurate debt forecasting and failure to collect student loans effectively threatened the continued existence of the current HE loans model because the cost of providing loans is as much if not more than the original funding.”

The consultation document also suggests that rules which prevent learners from taking out more than one loan at once should be abolished, and instead a maximum should be set for the amount of money one person can borrow in their life time.

Both AoC and AELP agreed that learners should be able to take out more than one loan, with AoC suggesting up to four loans at once. And the AoC response agreed a maximum lifetime amount should be set. However, AELP was less sure. It said: “Although setting a single maximum loan amount might appear simpler it would not be easy to establish the appropriate maximum level that should be allowed.”

The government response to the consultation is due to be published on November 13.

Local colleges are ready to take on A-level students from a school sixth form set to close because of plummeting learner numbers.

The government’s schools adjudicator David Lennard Jones confirmed today that he had approved plans to close the sixth form at Culcheth High School, in Warrington.

It is understood the school will continue educating current sixth formers in their second year of A-levels but not take on anyone for Year 12, before officially shutting down on August 31 next year.

Many Culcheth High School learners who have just completed their GCSEs will be transferring to Priestley College — which is rated as outstanding by Ofsted and already has around 1,500 A-level learners.

Matthew Grant, deputy principal of Priestley College which is just six miles from Culcheth High School, told FE Week: “This has been on the cards since Christmas so many young people in Year 11 have applied to us already.

“We take on between 70 and 90 pupils from Culcheth every year anyway and are expecting an extra 20 or 30 from there this year, which will be in a strong position to accept.”

Learners from Culcheth High School will also have the option of attending nearby Winstanley College, St Helen’s College, Carmel Sixth Form College, in St Helens, and Warrington Collegiate.

A spokesperson for Warrington Collegiate said: “Together with the other local colleges, we have been making the Culcheth students aware of alternate provision in the area.

“We have been in contact with Year 10 students there to discuss their long-term plans for where they want to move to.”

Warrington Borough Council first published plans in March to close Culcheth High School’s sixth form, which only had 58 students last year.

Its executive committee agreed to the closure in June but the final decision was deferred to the government’s schools adjudicator.

David Igoe, chief executive of the Sixth Form College Association, said: “I’m sure the local sixth form colleges will be in a good position to take on the extra students.

“Although we don’t recommend that one size fits all, there is no question from looking at all the relevant indicators that quality sixth form colleges out-perform all competitors.

“The problem with a small school sixth form is it cannot offer the breadth of A-level subjects young people need.

“The average sixth form college now has around 1,700 students, while the average school sixth form has just over 200. Economies of scale apply, so it is more expensive per pupil for them to provide sixth form provision and they end up having to subsidise from other funding streams, such as that for 11 to 16-year-olds.”

Mr Lennard Jones’s report confirmed that the school had struggled to retain sufficient learner numbers at its sixth form.

He said: “The evidence is that demand for places at the [Culcheth] sixth form is limited and that most pupils in Year 11 at the school choose to go elsewhere for sixth form provision.

“The admission number for the school for Year 7 is 230 and the school has over 200 pupils in each of Years 7 to 11, but very few in past years have then stayed at the school for the sixth form.”

Culcheth High School was unavailable for comment.