The Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) has announced the appointment of Chris Cherry to its senior management team.

Cherry joins the team as Executive Director, Strategy and Business Development. He has worked as a college lecturer and senior manager, and more recently as an inspector, education adviser, consultant and business development director.

Mr Cherry said; “This is a tremendous opportunity to support the sector through major shifts in policy and the impact of further social and economic change.”

Two north London colleges officially merged this week in a bid to protect their financial future

The merger between Barnet College and Southgate College took place on Tuesday 1st November.

The new Barnet and Southgate College is now one of London’s largest further education institutions, with an annual turnover of £50m.

Marilyn Hawkins, principal at the newly merged college said: “This merger marks the beginning of a new chapter in Further Education in London, and I am really excited about the opportunities it will provide, enabling us to do what we do best: enhance the social and economic well-being of our students.”

The college has stated that teaching staff will be unaffected by the move.

The Government has reversed its plans to remove the compulsory legal requirement of having two student governors at each college.

Skills Minister Lord Hill has confirmed the coalition will bring a new amendment to secure staff and student governors when the Education Bill is returned to Parliament on November 14, 2011.

The decision follows heavy lobbying of both Government ministers and parliamentarians by the NUS, who has worked closely with unions such as UCU and UNISON to try and change the proposals.

Lord Hill announced the Government’s change of heart in response to a counter amendment the Labour party tabled at the House of Lords yesterday.

Lord Hill said: “Having listened to the arguments that were put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, my honourable friend Mr Hayes and I have spoken further.

“We have decided that the Government will return at Third Reading with their own amendment, which will give effect to what the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to achieve.

“With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.”

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said in response that she would temporarily withdraw the counter amendment from Labour:

Baroness Jones said: “I am therefore grateful that the Minister has agreed to reconsider this issue and to come back with a form of words that will reinstate the right to student and staff representation at Third Reading.

“On this basis, we are prepared to withdraw Amendment 84ZLA. We of course reserve the right to return to this issue at Third Reading should we feel that the new proposals are lacking in any way, but I am sure that that will not be the case.

“For the moment, I thank the Minister for the progress made on this issue.”

Employers and learners should pay more towards apprenticeships, according to Graham Hoyle.

Mr Hoyle, Chief Executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), says the government should only be paying for the basic skills, and employers should think of apprenticeships as a valuable investment.

“The government has to articulate what it is that they’re prepared to pay for, say basic skills, and then they should publish their contributions towards it,” Mr Hoyle said. “So what does that leave you with? It leaves you the rest to be paid for by the employer and or individual.”

Mr Hoyle (left) later added that the industry had got it wrong for “the last decade or more.”

“It’s always been employer designed, employer funded, and maybe with a contribution from the individual. That’s the way it’s always been until the mid-1990s,” Mr Hoyle said. “We should never have lost that picture, and we should be promoting apprenticeships to employers as an investment which they cannot afford not to make.

“We ought to be going straight to employers, and saying this is an investment in your bottom line productivity, profitability, and here are the predicted returns from the database. “Oh and by the way, the government will actually contribute towards it!”

Mick Fletcher, Policy Advisor for the 157 Group, said that “in broad terms” Mr Hoyle’s comments are correct.

He said: “It’s entirely due to providers responding to the financial incentives and the targets that government agencies have set. I don’t blame providers and I don’t blame firms.

“It’s starting to look too much like a government funded programme, as opposed to government encouragement of an employer funded programme.”

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) disagrees with Mr Hoyle and says that employers are already paying enough towards the cost of apprenticeships.

“Employers already invest heavily in apprenticeships and bear a lot of the costs which include on-the-job training, allocated staff time to supervise apprentices and wage costs”, a spokesperson from CBI said. “The extra funding Government has made available for apprenticeships is welcome, and has supported firms to take on and train more people.”

The ‘Independent Review of Fees and Co-Funding in Further Education in England’, written by Christopher Banks in July 2010 argued that changes to the current funding system were needed.

The review states: “The current system has failed to prioritise, explain and secure the co-investment contributions from those adults and employers who can and should contribute to the costs of learning.”

“A culture has been generated in which colleges and training providers, individual learners and employers have all come to expect that training will be “free” to them, and fully funded by the Government.”

Teresa Frith, Senior Skills Policy Manager at the Association of Colleges (AoC), said there was no simple fix for apprenticeship funding.

“Employers could argue that they shouldn’t be paying for literacy and numeracy skills or knowledge and skills that the apprentice will rarely use in their current role. With the current economic situation, it is unrealistic to expect a significant increase in employer contributions to training.

“There are no simple solutions to the question of how to pay for their training.”

Apprentices could be forced to pay for their training under an FE loans system recently proposed by government.

“We’re sceptical about the Government’s plan to get apprentices themselves to pay with the help of loans and we’re concerned that the new large employer pilot schemes could result in corners being cut,” Frith said.

Mr Fletcher added that he didn’t think apprentices should be required to pay for their training. “Young people contribute to the programme through taking lower wages. As apprentices that’s been the traditional balance of responsibility and I’m not inclined to at this stage to say that young people should be paying employers for the privilege of being trained,” Mr Fletcher said.

UPDATE: Today, at the Institute of Career Guidance Annual Conference,  FE Week also asked the Minster for FE, John Hayes, whether or not he thought large employers like Morrisons and Asda should be contributing cash towards apprenticeships.

He said: “It’s right that large employers should make a contribution to the scheme, it’s absolutely right. What I said in opposition is that it was time for a debate about who pays for what. This is what individuals pay, which is why we’re talking about changing some of the funding assumptions around provisionals, and what the government should pay, and that’s where it can put it’s money to maximum effect, as well as what employers pay. It’s perfectly appropriate to have that debate.”