Finding the balance for working in partnership

Of the many challenges facing the FE Sector today, getting the right balance between working with private training providers and being self- sufficient is one that continues to challenge college principals and their senior leadership teams.

We all know the history of poor franchising and sub contracts, and many of the horror stories that surround colleges and learners involved with unscrupulous and poor quality training providers.
However, amongst all of the hype, hysteria and headlines there are many successful examples of when real partnership working continues to meet the goals and aspirations of many colleges.

So how should it be done? Private training should work along very similar reporting lines to the way that many colleges operate their college departments and directorates. There should be regular review meetings, joint quality assurance methods with partners and open and transparent data management for all partners.

Regardless of the size or value of contracts, senior personnel should meet with college staff on a regular basis to ensure high levels of confidence in the relationship. The aim of these meetings should be to ensure that working in partnership should never create problems – it should solve them.

The aim of these meetings should be to ensure that working in partnership should never create problems- it should solve them. ”

For any partnership to work between a college and training provider it is crucial that the following key characteristics exist:

• A mutually trusting and transparent relationship at all levels.

• Strong and clear lines of communication

• Appropriate quality assurance arrangements
Providing these essential elements are in place, partnerships are in a position to be able to deliver the following benefits;

• Extend the college’s reach into its local community and economy.
Good training providers can add value to a college’s curriculum offer, often by providing niche services in a cost effective and high quality manner.

They have their own network within the relevant business communities, and their own experienced staff who understand the needs of these sectors.

• Supporting the achievement of targets for income and participation.

Good training providers are able to turn delivery projects around quickly with high success rates. They provide a swift response to opportunities and can be used flexibly to realign resources when challenged with meeting college recruitment and achievement targets.

• Provide a healthy financial contribution to college overheads

Good partnerships are more cost effective. Where there are high levels of trust, partnership delivery can be low risk and provide low application costs to help to deliver programmes economically in today’s environment of significantly reduced funding for colleges. In order to streamline their partnership operations many colleges are reducing the number of partners they work with on an annual basis to only a handful.

For the training providers who are selected to be one of the successful few, the future will be one of extended and diversified participation in an increased share of programme provision, student recruitment and work-based training as well as the opportunity to play a greater role in supporting the sector to achieve its planned objectives.

 

By Mick Cox

Changing the funding formula for 16-19 learners

Following the closure of the 16-19 funding formula review consultation at the start of the month, FE Week asked Paul Warner, director of employment and skils at the AELP, and Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group, for their thoughts on simplification, funding rates and methodologies.

Simplification is about much more than reducing paperwork. In AELP’s view, whilst recent attempts to simplify the post-16 system have been well-intentioned, most have simply altered processes rather than tackling the issue of desirable outcomes head on.

What is needed is an improvement in our ability and willingness to review what we’re doing and crucially why we’re doing it, to try and ensure that outputs match up with policy intent.
Just reducing the number of boxes to tick, or making it easier to understand rates calculations, are not in themselves enough. Whilst there is much that AELP can agree with in the current YPLA consultation on simplification of funding, we believe that the key issue is really maximising the freedom for providers to create bespoke packages of learning for each individual.

There is little to be gained for example from the current situation whereby unemployed 16/17 year olds cannot study single units of qualification with a provider not holding a Foundation Learning (FL) contract, even though the provider may have an Apprenticeship contract in which those units are being perfectly satisfactorily delivered. Who gains from that?

This is a reflection of an entrenched programme-led structure within young people’s provision that does not chime either with SFA’s move to a single adult budget, nor with DWP’s move to a “black box” approach, where in both cases the fundamental principle is that providers can deliver what is needed by the learner or employer, rather than what a prescribed programme allows.

Foundation Learning can’t just be “simplified” or “made more flexible” if it is to succeed – it needs an overhaul from the ground up.”

For YPLA to hold on to programme-led structures post-16 is therefore out of alignment with the general thrust across government for proper responsiveness to the demand for skills.

It is an outdated approach that in essence Professor Wolf was only last year openly criticising.

The funding structure to support this total flexibility should aim to both enable young people to become qualified, and encourage their entry into work.

It should encourage the delivery of both of these elements by rewarding the delivery of both outputs for one person, in terms of provider funding, at a proportionately higher level than the achievement of just one of them.

This would enhance the worth of qualifications by encouraging the attainment of those that are directly relevant to prospects of work.

This desirable output is signally not being addressed by the current structure of FL, which ignores the employers’ presence almost completely, even though the desire to increase learners’ progression into work is constantly cited as the reason why Entry to Employment was dropped and FL introduced.

Foundation Learning can’t just be “simplified” or “made more flexible” if it is to succeed – it needs an overhaul from the ground up.

Just “simplifying” is accepting that “in an ideal world, we wouldn’t start from here”. Young people’s provision, and particularly FL, needs some fundamental changes if it is to result in anything of worth in terms of economic recovery. Simplification should be incidental to this aim, not the other way around.

Tom Wilson, director, Unionlearn

Raised in rural Shropshire, in a family that was “very middle of the road” politically, Tom Wilson was an unlikely teenage leftie. In fact, his parents – both teachers – regarded his political awakenings with some amusement, he says.

Educated at Wellington Grammar School, which “had pretentions to being a posh school but was in fact a very ordinary grammar school,” he was inspired by the example of former pupil Len Murray, who went on to become the general secretary of the TUC. “This was back in the early 70s and me and my mate Desmond, whose dad was convenor at GKN Sankey – a local engineering company – were sort of radical lefties,” he recalls. “We were fixated on the fact that if Len Murray came from our ordinary school and he was general secretary of the TUC, well then we could do the same.”

Having studied hard at school – something he jokes was down to growing up in a small village and having “nothing else to do” – Wilson went on to St. Andrew’s University, where he studied philosophy, got heavily involved in student politics and spent a lot of time arguing with “rising young Thatcherites.” It was an exciting time to be a student; St. Andrews was the first university to opt out of the National Union of Students – a move Wilson fought against – and the protest movement had begun to gain momentum.

But it was working during the university holidays that really started to shape his political interests, he says. During his time at St. Andrew’s he worked in construction, on factory production lines, as a hospital porter and, in perhaps his most unusual job, cooked breakfasts for workers on an oil-rig in Scapa Flow, off the Orkney Islands.

“I always think actually I learned more from those experiences than I ever did from university,” he says. “I learned what life was like for ordinary working people and how bloody awful and boring lots of peoples’ jobs were.

That was where I got into learning for the first time, because it really kind of impressed upon me, that in those days particularly, if you didn’t do well at school and you hadn’t got yourself into college or university you were stuck. You were stuck in some dead end boring job for the rest of your life.”

His experiences pressed upon him the significance of his upbringing, of being brought up around books, with parents who encouraged him to study. While many of his colleagues were equally, if not more intelligent and well-informed as him, the hand they had been dealt in life meant that while he would be going back to university – and a choice of jobs or careers, many of his colleagues “were stuck there forever.”I’m not saying unions are perfect, but I’ve always felt more comfortable in a union than any political world.”

But he admits his empathy was misdirected at times. He recalls one job, working for the Pepsi Cola bottling factory in Acton, west London, where “basically, the job was to wade up to your knees in broken glass and sticky kind of Pepsi that was all over the floor” taking bottles off the production line and putting them in plastic crates.

Having seen a notice pinned to the wall that made him realise that the recruitment agency he and his colleagues – many of whom were African immigrants – were employed by, were giving the workers half what they were being paid by the company, he was incensed.

 I’m not saying unions are perfect, but I’ve always felt more comfortable in a union than any political world.”

But he soon found colleagues didn’t necessarily share his views. “I said to the bloke next to me ‘Look at this, we’re getting paid half – why is the agency getting all this money?’ And he was horrified that I was kind of rocking the boat a little bit and because he thought it was a really good job and he thought I was mad to get upset about it or protest about it…he could see it was completely unfair that the agency was ripping us off to that extent, but he thought it was inconceivable that anyone could do anything about it.”

After university, Wilson did a diploma in Social Administration at York University, followed by a Masters in Industrial Relations at Warwick. After a brief spell working as a journalist, on a magazine for trade union officials, he moved to the GMB, where he spent six years doing research, speech writing, drafting wage claims and teaching shop stewards. He then moved to the Labour Party, where he spent three happy years as their national trade union liaison officer and got to know some of those, like Peter Mandelson, who went on to be part of the government.

“I know he isn’t terribly fashionable in some quarters, but he was a very personable, bright bloke,” he says of Mandelson. “I didn’t always agree with his politics but then so what – you never agree with everyone’s politics. He was a very interesting guy and unlike some others, he was genuinely interested in the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party.”

There were many ups and down in the job, but the biggest low was the 1987 election, says Wilson. Having “ate, slept and breathed” the campaign for weeks, losing the election – Labour’s fourth successive defeat – was a crushing blow.

After three years working for the party, by which time he had two small children, he realised the job wasn’t compatible with normal family life. He moved to the Association of University Teachers (now known as UCU, since its merger with the National Association of Teachers of Further and Higher Education Nafthe in 2006), where he stayed for the next 15 years in a variety of roles, including head of research.

Wilson joined the TUC in 1993 as head of organisation and services and was appointed director of their learning and skills organisation, unionlearn in 2009. He is immensely proud of the introduction union of learning reps, a new kind of union activist role that is concerned with helping employees access learning and training – which he says are “massively important and the foundation of everything we do.” The biggest challenge for unionlearn at the moment, is moving employers on from awareness to action, from wanting unions “just to be kind of cheerleaders for what they do, to a genuine kind of equal and open discussion where they sit down and are prepared to actually negotiate properly and openly about the way they organise their training.”

More broadly, the challenge for the union movement is being clear that while it does not support many of the government’s policies (particularly its stance on pensions), it does acknowledge the support the government is providing for skills and training.

Wilson speaks warmly of the skills minister John Hayes, who he says is “ engaged, supportive and interested” and “plainly cares about unionlearn.”

But he is not so effusive about the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), who he says “are supposed to represent British employers and they don’t really do enough in my opinion to argue the case for better and fairer investment in training… “

In his vision for a fairer education system for all, there would be a National Learning Service, instead of the “fragmentary patchwork” of further and higher education currently in existence. In this kind of system, he says, people could move more easily from further to higher education – and between institutions – which, above all, would make funding far less complicated.

While at 59, he has no plans to retire, he would love to write a book about history of trade union learning which, he concedes, might make “most people roll their eyes in horror and think ‘how boring can you possible get?’” Clearly, after more than 30 years’ involvement with unions – that is where he feels most at home.

“When I was at the Labour party, I was struck by the way party people are much more prone I think to looking at things in terms of individuals – you know, who’s in and who’s out. But unions are a different sort of world where culturally you look much more at people generally in terms of the organisations or the groups of people they belong to… I’m not saying unions are perfect, but I’ve always felt more comfortable in a union than any political world.”

Changing the funding formula for 16-19 learners

Following the closure of the 16-19 funding formula review consultation at the start of the month, FE Week asked Paul Warner, director of employment and skils at the AELP, and Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group, for their thoughts on simplification, funding rates and methodologies.

There is much to welcome in the proposals to change the way in which programmes for 16-19 year olds are funded. They clearly build on the Wolf Review which we have also welcomed and put learners and learning rather than the accumulation of qualifications centre stage.

They are consistent with the drive to give more freedom to institutions to decide what is best for their learners; and they are based on a clear set of principles which most people would endorse. We in the 157 Group are keen to work with the new Education Funding Agency to make them a success.

We are particularly pleased at the proposal that funding should follow learners, not qualifications. One of the clear weaknesses of the current system is that institutions are forced to design students’ programmes around the accumulation of qualifications in order to balance the books.

Now colleges and other providers will be trusted to deliver a mix of activities some of which will lead to qualifications and some will not. Although revolutionary in FE it is what happens in virtually every other phase of education.

It looks clear that funding for adults will develop in a quite different direction”

In one important respect however the funding proposals risk diverging from the Wolf agenda. One of the many unfortunate consequences of a qualification driven system is that students who find learning easy attract more funding than those who find it difficult; they can take more qualifications and earn their institution more money.

A real attraction of the Wolf Review and the funding reforms that follow is the prospect of an end to a system that systematically directs more funding towards level 3 students compared with those studying at levels 1 and 2 and selective institutions at the expense of the more inclusive. Funding learners rather than qualifications should mean just that – a standard sum per learner.

To the extent that the proposals will simplify the funding system that is also welcome, though it is far from their most important aspect. Unlike some previous ‘simplifications’ which actually succeeded in making the system considerably more complex, the new system does promise to be simpler, though in ways that are not all that important to colleges. The reduction in the number of programme weights for example makes the system look a little more simple on paper, but will do little to cut bureaucracy.

There is also a risk that simplification will lead to inequity. The 157 group is increasingly concerned about STEM subjects which it is generally accepted are more expensive to teach. The proposals to reduce the number of programme weights will in effect reduce the differential in funding between STEM subjects and others making them less attractive. Taken together with BIS proposals that mean that over 24s will have to take out larger loans if they study a STEM subject there is a risk that moves to increase the focus on STEM will be put in reverse.

It is of course a weakness of the proposals that they only affect part of college provision, and it looks clear that funding for adults will develop in a quite different direction. This is particularly problematic for the 19-24 age group many of whom are following a similar path to 16-18s but a couple of years later.

If we must have two departments it would be good if they could agree on a consistent set of funding principles and the ones set out by DfE/YPLA represent a good starting point. They emphasise the importance of stability in institutional funding; the need for funding to reflect necessary costs, and for the system to avoid introducing perverse incentives. Surely we can all sign up to that.

Schools with sixth forms restricting college access

Schools with sixth forms are giving students biased advice and restricting the access of colleges and training providers, according to a report by the 157 Group.

The policy paper, titled ‘Information is not enough: the case for professional careers guidance’, calls for more schools and colleges to offer impartial guidance, as well as face-to-face careers advice from a specialist.

It states: “The lack of impartial advice and guidance in many schools with sixth forms has been well documented over the years and is acknowledged to be a major problem in many communities.

“As more schools acquire sixth forms, and thereby a perverse incentive to restrict the awareness of the full range of options for their students, the problem will get worse.”

The 157 Group says they are concerned how the Department for Education (DfE) has removed earmarked funding for the careers service and left securing careers guidance down to the discretion of individual schools.

The report states: “While some schools will no doubt provide an excellent service, it is equally probable that many will not; and a school based system will never be able to relate systematically with provision for adults to provide a seamless service for users at each stage of their learning journey.”

Sarah Finnegan-Dehn, President of the Institute of Career Guidance (ICG), said: “The recent changes in the way careers support in schools is organised put at risk the chances of many school leavers in the future to have the help they need to help them understand the different progression routes including opportunities in FE, the up and coming jobs of the future, the implications of their choices in terms of jobs and to really understand their own potential.”

The DfE has admitted that current careers advice is “poor quality” and “patchy”.

“We make no apologies for giving schools responsibility for providing independent, impartial careers advice,” a DfE spokesperson said.

“They know their students best – so it’s right they should decide what provision is right and that they have complete control over their budgets to buy in the support that pupils need.”

The spokesperson added: “Young people need good quality careers advice – but the sad fact is that too much provision at the moment is poor quality and patchy.

“We are due to consult shortly on expanding this duty on schools and colleges for pupils up to the age of 18.”

The 157 Group says cuts in entitlement funding for schools and colleges is making it increasingly difficult to fund visits, work experience and high quality guidance for learners

The report adds that while many learners will appreciate the online and telephone services offered by Learndirect and Next Step, most will want face-to-face contact to be able to interpret the information available to them.

“Although we are supportive of Next Step, we are still pushing for an entitlement to face-to-face careers guidance for people of all ages, as this is what we feel makes a real difference to achieving effective IAG with positive outcomes for all,” said Lynne Sedgmore CBE, executive director of the 157 Group.

The report says cuts in local authority funding are causing a huge loss in the number of qualified advisers, and that school pupils are often ill-informed about the qualifications they are achieving.

Steve Higginbotham, Immediate Past President of the Institute of Career Guidance, said: “With the demise of Connexions and major reforms to the careers service taking place at a time of rapid economic change, we fear that many young people will lose the option of face to face guidance, and that services for adults will not be able to meet the demands placed upon them.”

(The report can be downloaded from the 157 Group website here) 

 

Lynne Sedgmore Q&A

Q) The report says many schools with sixth forms are restricting the access of colleges and other providers. Is this a new issue?

Unfortunately we understand there have always been examples of restrictions on access, intentional or otherwise, but there are also examples of strong partnerships in existence and we encourage more schools and school sixth forms to work in collaboration with colleges and other providers. It would be speculation to say whether this has grown into a much larger problem, but of course with recent policy changes and challenges, the climate is much more competitive out there, so it is understandable, if not helpful to learners, that institutions would want to protect their own interests.

Q) If a school pupil is ill-informed about the currency of the qualification they are receiving, how will this affect their progression into FE?

It is inevitable that this would affect their progression into FE or into any other pathway that they desire to break into, and in some cases individuals would not be able to enter a course for which they thought they had qualified. This is why in our paper we argue for the importance of impartial guidance around qualifications and options. Early prevention and the flow of effective IAG from school days and beyond improves the chances of progression into further and higher education as it keeps learners engaged with the curriculum and system.

Q) Is the role of face-to-face support, either from qualified staff or advisers under threat?

This is under threat for young people but it is of paramount importance. Although we are supportive of the government’s Next Step and Learndirect services, this is not enough if we are to take seriously the issues around effective careers education and guidance. For many people face-to-face support is much more accessible, personal and encouraging than over-the-telephone services.

Q) Do you think the National Careers Service will solve some of these problems? Does it have the capacity to cope with FE?

We need to be optimistic about the National Careers Service. With the support of key stakeholders we think it does have the capacity to work with FE and to help solve some of these problems for adult learners. We are more worried about the loss of services for young people as in a changing and complex landscape, we need more than ever accurate information, advice and guidance to be made available via a professional workforce.

£60m yacht? That could give 45,000 students EMA, says NUS

The National Union of Students (NUS) has suggested how the estimated £60 million needed to buy a new yacht for the Queen could be spent improving FE.

Education secretary Michael Gove made the suggestion in a letter to Nick Clegg and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt last week.

David Cameron has since rejected the proposal, saying it would be an inappropriate use of public money.

Liam Burns, President of the NUS, said: “Thankfully this ridiculous idea has already been ruled out but we felt it was important to remind Mr Gove and Mr Willetts what benefits £60 million could bring to education.”

Some of the suggestions made by the NUS include giving 45,000 students EMA for a year and continuing the improvement of college buildings.

UCU case against IfL has now been ‘discontinued’

Legal proceedings between the University and College Union (UCU) and the Institute for Learning (IfL) have been discontinued.

The move comes after the individual claimant in the case, who is a member of  the UCU, which has been supporting the action, took on a new job in higher education (HE), where membership to the IfL is not required.

However, it is not the end of  the saga, which began in the summer when the union’s members voted to boycott the IfL over plans to introduce a £38-a-year membership fee.

While the IfL has welcomed the news, the UCU say the court action could be resurrected – with the government’s review into regulating and facilitating professionalism of  FE and skills workforce pivotal to future action.

IfL believes in peaceable ways forward, working in partnership with unions and employers, rather than through the courts, in the interests of  teachers and trainers, their learners and our sector as a whole”

The UCU, which announced a suspension of  the legal threat when the review was announced by the government in September, said the discontinuation of  the case took place earlier this month when the claimant’s move to HE was confirmed.

The UCU’s general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “The prompt for discontinuance was the claimant moving to higher education. If  that had not happened we expect the action would have stayed in the court until the review had been completed.”

Although unaware of  any members’ employment being under threat by not paying the membership, she added: “In the unlikely event a change of  situation occurs we can swiftly reapply using another UCU member working in further education as the claimant.”

Meanwhile, IfL chief  executive, Toni Fazaeli, said: “IfL welcomes the discontinuation of  the High Court proceedings brought against IfL by a University and College Union member with UCU’s support. IfL believes in peaceable ways forward, working in partnership with unions and employers, rather than through the courts, in the interests of  teachers and trainers, their learners and our sector as a whole.”

However, while the UCU has claimed that both sides have acknowledged the issues can still be taken before court, the IfL feels it would be a matter for the court to decide. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Department of  Business, Innovation and Skills said the review, which is due to last three months, will soon get underway.

As well as professionalism, the review will also take account of  the “broader context” of  the strategy of  Skills for Sustainable Growth and the belief  that building status of  workforce is “central to building and promoting the reputation” of  the sector.

The spokesperson said: “A preliminary planning meeting for the review took place last week. We will announce the start of  the review and full details shortly. It will be for the independent review itself  to determine who is invited and what other evidence and views need to be gathered.”

Mrs Hunt added: “We anticipate that the review will address the issues in contention. UCU members will not however, pay for any professional body that is not perceived to have added value or bring benefits to its members.”

Mrs Fazaeli added: “We look forward to contributing to the independent review of  professionalism in the further education and skills sector. This review and our work with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) to support an independent commission on adult education and vocational pedagogy will be key priorities for IfL in the coming weeks, as we continue working to promote the status and professional interests of  teachers and trainers.”

Case for employer ownership unclear

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) has confirmed its most recent report was drawn up using no new data or research.

Proposals made in the Employer Ownership of  Skills report were suggested by the 23  UKCES commissioners, of  which three represent both further and higher education, and three represent small and medium-sized employers.

The UKCES says the proposals, which include increasing the amount of  public funding given directly to employers for apprenticeships and training, address some of  the issues highlighted in The Youth Inquiry and the Employer Perspectives Survey 2010.

“The solutions we’re proposing – one of  which is to route some public funding for employer facing skills through employers in return for greater private investment – isn’t contained within these reports,” a spokesperson for UKCES said.

“That’s because they (quite genuinely) came directly from our commissioners, who are a mix of  large and small employers, representatives from FE and HE, Unions, third sector, etc.”

She also added: “The documents set out some of  the problems – the two different skills systems, the comparative lack of  employer interest and investment in the publicly-funded skills system and so on. So we know for definite that the issues are real.”

It is not clear whether all SMEs want this reform.”

The UKCES report suggests funding employers directly for apprenticeships through the tax system, as well as reviewing the effects of  current policy and infrastructure on employer ownership.

It states: “We propose that Government Invite employers to step up to the challenge of  bringing more young people (16-24) into the productive workforce by funding employers directly for apprenticeships, for example through the tax system (e.g. via National Insurance rebates) and incentivising work experience.”

The report says an increased amount of  public funding would help create “a more responsive training provider network” and encourage employers to contribute more to vocational training. Other benefits include allowing colleges and training providers to compete based on quality and innovation, rather than volumes and government priorities.

The 157 Group, however, says it is “not clear” whether all small and medium sized employers (SMEs) are supportive of  the reforms.

“Many strongly value the role of  colleges and other training providers in sorting out the administration and reporting that has to be associated with spending public money,” said Lynne Sedgmore CBE, executive director of  the 157 Group. “It is not clear whether all SMEs want this reform.”

The Association of  Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) says the UKCES proposals will only be successful if  they manage to persuade employers to contribute more of  their own money towards training.

“The move to reposition apprenticeship and skills development as an employer responsibility is enthusiastically supported, but we must watch out for dead-weight,” said Graham Hoyle, chief executive of  the AELP.

“The aim and the ultimate success of  the new proposals must be to persuade more employers of  the economic benefit of  increasing their investment in their skills agenda, leaving the government to continue supporting the many individuals who are wanting to get onto the first step of  the ladder in order to start confidently moving upwards.”

Sean Taggart, UKCES commissioner and chief  executive of  The Albatross Group, supports the proposals and said direct funding would not simply be used as a “giveaway” for businesses.

He said: “This public investment will be used to leverage greater private investment in skills development. Colleges, schools and learners have been asking for improved access to employers and this is a real opportunity for that to happen, with benefits for all concerned. It’s important to remember that this is not a giveaway.”

Further 16-18 apprenticeship funding rate reduction

The government is proceeding with plans to reduce the national funding rate for 16 to 18 apprenticeships by another two per cent next year, despite under-spending by £15m in 2010/11.

The rate reduction comes as youth unemployment continues to break records, which for 16 and 24 year-olds increased by 52,000 during the three months ending in November 2011, hitting a staggering 1.04 million.

We regret this proposed reduction and it probably needs to be looked at again in the context of  the recent announcement about a minimum one-year duration for 16-18 apprentices,”

A spokesperson for the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) said: “The YPLA announced in its 16-19 Funding Statement in December 2011 that the national funding rate for 16-18 Apprenticeships will be reduced by two per cent in 2012/13. At the end of  March, the Agency will publish the Funding Rules for 2012/13, which will include the national funding rates.”

The Association of  Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said the reduction would cause a “tension” between quality and volume.

“We regret this proposed reduction and it probably needs to be looked at again in the context of  the recent announcement about a minimum one-year duration for 16-18 apprentices,” an AELP spokesman said. “There is universal agreement that young people should be receiving quality training on an apprenticeship and quality provision comes at a cost. Therefore when the government is trying to grow the number of  young people starting apprenticeships, a rate cut could create a tension between increasing volumes and maintaining quality.”

The national funding rate for apprenticeships aged between 19 and 24, as well as 25 and over, will remain unchanged in 2012/13. The SFA has also revealed “the under spend on the 2010/11 financial year for 16-18 apprenticeships was £15 million, which represented less than two per cent of  the budget.”

Gordon Marsden MP, shadow minister for FE, has called on the government to increase the number of  apprenticeships for young people at small and medium sized businesses.

He said: “Apprenticeships have a key role in play in providing new opportunities for young people and boosting growth across the regions. For all the government’s rhetoric on apprenticeships, they are still failing to create enough places for young people, while many smaller sized businesses feel unable to take part.”

Proposals by Labour include redirecting money from the Growth and Innovation Fund into a new ‘Apprenticeships Innovation and Collaboration Fund’, designed to encourage smaller firms to take on a young apprentice.

John Hayes MP, minister for further education, skills and lifelong learning, has said he will “focus” on improving apprenticeships for people aged 16 to 24. Mr Hayes, speaking at an apprenticeships debate in the House of  Commons last month, said: “It is important that we focus apprenticeships on where they are of  most value, and there is more evidence to suggest that they are of  most value to young people between the ages of  16 and 24; and, secondly, it is important that we are relentless in our drive for quality.”