Clause
93Learning
aims for persons aged 19 or over: provisions of
facilities 10.45
am Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): I beg to move amendment
117, in
clause 93, page 56, line 10, leave
out from ‘is’ to end of line 12 and insert
‘either— (a) education or
vocational training provided by means of a course of study for a
qualification to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 applies,
or (b) an
apprenticeship.’. Good
morning, Mrs., Humble, and welcome back to the Chair. Clause
93 deals with the duty placed on the chief executive of Skills Funding
to provide proper facilities for certain adults who lack basic skills
so that that they can acquire those skills. This is a straightforward
amendment, so I shall rise to the Minister’s challenge by not
speaking to it for too long. As drafted, the clause states that the
duty to be placed on the chief executive of Skills Funding is to
provide educational and vocational training to adults who lack certain
basic skills. However, it does not explicitly include apprenticeships
as one of those proper vocational training courses. In our debates on
earlier clauses, we were keen to seek assurances from the Ministers
that the apprenticeship option would be included in guidance
and advice; for instance, apprenticeships should be explicitly
mentioned to young people starting off on their training journey, and
they should be included in the suite of training courses available to
people whether they are young or, as in this part of the Bill, over
19.
The purpose
of the amendment is to expand the definition of education and
vocational training explicitly to include an
apprenticeship—presumably a level 2
apprenticeship—to meet the basic skills requirements envisaged by
the clause. We are having this discussion in a terrible recession and
economic downturn. Members on both sides of the Committee have all made
speeches in various debates saying that this is the time to encourage
adults to skill and reskill throughout their working lives. The clause
is directed at adults who lack basic skills. One purpose of the Bill is
to enable people to acquire an apprenticeship at level 2, and I would
like an assurance from the Minister that the clause opens up the
opportunity for an adult, aged over 19, to commence a level 2
apprenticeship. Mr.
Hayes: As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, clause
93 enables adults who do not have any qualifications or who have
learning difficulties to qualify for a specified qualification in
literacy and numeracy, or a level 2 vocational qualification. The
amendment proposes that the entitlement should extend to
apprenticeships, and that is welcome. It is absolutely essential that
apprenticeships are built in to assumptions about what people might
learn in those circumstances. Apprenticeships must be as available and
as inclusive as possible and that is what the amendment strives to
achieve. However, there are some problems with the amendment and the
hon. Gentleman might want to deal with them.
First, subsection (3)(b)
specifically relates to people with no certificate of literacy or
numeracy and no level 2 vocational qualification. While we support the
inclusivity of apprenticeships, it is clear that there are
apprenticeships in certain sectors that require basic standards of
numeracy and literacy and that is not necessarily guaranteed by the
amendment. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how that might affect
apprenticeships in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics
sector? Secondly, the
amendment centralises authority to some degree and, despite its
laudable objectives, unless we are very careful, it will increase
bureaucracy and regulation, which Conservative Members wish to cast
aside. That is an issue that sector skills councils must consider and
on which they must develop policies in consultation with employers and
learning providers. Sector skills councils should be required to make
apprenticeships as inclusive as possible, but we would all accept that
not all apprenticeships suit all kinds of people and are, by their
nature, tailored by circumstances, aptitudes and the existing skills of
learners.
Both Skill
and ALLFIE—the alliance for inclusive education—expressed
similar concerns about access to apprenticeships for disabled learners,
which is why I raised the issue in our earlier debate this morning.
Those groups state that the requirement for level 2
qualifications “may
disadvantage some disabled learners who may have very relevant
experience but may struggle to gain the require
qualifications.”.
They also recommend
that eligibility should not be
“limited to
qualifications, but that a portfolio of evidence is
considered.”. That
is a route that should be looked at by Government, in conjunction with
sector skills councils, and I would welcome the Minister’s
comments when he replies to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Bristol, West.
Mr.
Simon: Can the hon. Gentleman go over the previous point
again? I did not quite understand what he was
asking.
Mr.
Hayes: Organisations that represent disabled people argue
that many of those for whom they speak do not fit the profile of the
typical learner. They may not have achieved the same levels or
qualifications in training or education as others, but they may have
lots of useful experience. They therefore suggest that a portfolio of
evidence of their experience and competence could be used as a
springboard—a trigger—for further training and education.
Will the Minister say something about that? I have suggested that SSCs
might like to consider that idea to increase inclusivity. We must think
more laterally if we want to increase the inclusivity of
apprenticeships. These are probing remarks, but it is worth raising
these issues at this stage because they are interesting and highly
relevant. Although we support the sentiment behind the amendment, the
measure itself carries the risk that it would compromise flexibility. I
know that that is not the intention, but I hope that the hon. Member
for Bristol, West understands the spirit in which I make these
remarks.
Mr.
Simon: I agree with the sentiments behind the remarks of
the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Bristol,
West. I understand where the hon. Member for Bristol, West is coming
from with his amendment. We all want adults to have the opportunity to
start and complete apprenticeships. An apprenticeship is an excellent
route for adults who want to improve their skills and employability,
which is why we have extended financial support to employers for
apprentices over the age of 25 and why the number of apprenticeship
starts in that group went up from just 300 in the previous year to
27,000 last
year. Clause
93 puts a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to ensure that
adults who have very few skills, who need help with numeracy and
literacy or who do not have a full level 2 can access the relevant
courses. Clause 94 will ensure that those learners and 19 to
25-year-olds taking their first level 3 will not have to pay full
tuition fees. Ultimately, this is a straightforward choice about
priorities. Our priority is improving the life chances of those with
very few skills, which puts them at a great
disadvantage. Amendment
117 would extend that duty to all adults who want to do an
apprenticeship. All the training costs of an adult apprenticeship would
be met from the public purse. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West
knows, employers are currently required to meet at least half the
training costs of apprentices who are over 18 in recognition
of the principle of shared responsibility between employers, learners
and the Government. Employers are asked to contribute most when they
stand to see the greatest returns. That is a long-standing policy
endorsed by Lord Leitch. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that
funding for apprenticeships is dealt with in clause 92 and that adults
are dealt with separately with the 50 per cent.
funding. The
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings suggested a portfolio of
evidence for disabled learners who wish to do apprenticeships.
Eligibility for apprenticeships is ultimately a matter for the
framework provider. We are working with Skill and others to find
alternative routes into apprenticeships. I do not think that these
matters should be included in the Bill, but I am sympathetic to the
concerns that he raises. Mr.
Hayes: Those matters would, I presume, be included in
guidance. If we are going to be clear in that guidance about the
various routes into training and education, which are highly pertinent
to the Bill, it should touch upon such things. While the Minister is
speaking, he might like to say something about the discrepancy that has
come to light between the number of apprenticeship completion
certificates that are issued and the announced number of
completions.
Mr.
Simon: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman for certain
whether we will refer specifically to the matter in guidance.
Certainly, we will continue to look at it
sympathetically.
Mr.
Hayes: I take that in good
faith.
Mr.
Simon: Good. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
good faith, and all I can do is give him assurance. The other matter
was brought to our attention only yesterday and we are looking at it as
a matter of urgency, on which basis I hope the hon. Member for Bristol,
West will be minded to withdraw the amendment. I sympathise with the
spirit of the amendment, but, practically, I do not think it would do
what he intends.
Stephen
Williams: First, the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings talked about not placing formal qualification barriers before
adults with learning difficulties when it comes to entering
apprenticeships or other schemes of vocational training. We have made
those points several times, especially my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole, who made them in relation to clauses that
we discussed earlier. Given that we still have much ground to cover, I
will be brief, and not go over the same things again. It is common
ground. I, too, have met ALLFIE to discuss its concerns, which we have
raised in Committee on its behalf.
I
welcome what the Minister has just said and what he said in relation to
previous clauses. He understands why we tabled the amendment, which
would make it clear that apprenticeships would be contemplated for
adults who lack basic skills. We have spoken many times about the
advice and support that would be given to young people and adults to
ensure that they understand all the training opportunities that are
available to them. The purpose of the amendment was not necessarily to
force a discussion on the funding of adult apprenticeships. The
Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party and,
indeed, the Conservative party, disagree about that, and we will
discuss it
shortly. Having
heard what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That Clause
93 be transferred to end of line 33 on page
50. —(Mr.
Simon.)
Schedule
5learning
aims for persons aged 19 or
over
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 201, in
schedule 5, page 165, line 14, after
‘education’, insert
‘and the International General
Certificate of Secondary
Education’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 202, in
schedule 5, page 165, line 18, after
‘Education’ insert ‘and the Cambridge
Pre-U’.
Mr.
Gibb: The schedule sets out a range of definitions of
levels of qualification for clauses 93 and 94. In other words, it
defines the learning aims for qualifying students over the age of 19,
and the qualifications for which the chief executive of Skills Funding
has to provide education. It defines level 2 as
“demonstrated by
the General Certificate of Secondary Education in five subjects, each
at Grade C or
above.” Level
3 is defined
as “demonstrated
by the General Certificate of Education at the advanced level in two
subjects.” In
amendment 201, we are seeking to include the international general
certificate of secondary education in the definition of level 2, and in
amendment 202, we are seeking to include the Cambridge pre-U in the
definition of level 3.
The pre-U was
recognised by Ofqual last year, and in April it was approved for
funding. It is meant to mark a return to the traditional A-level,
before it is divided into modules with assessment along the way. It
takes a linear approach—exams are taken only at the end of the
two-year course—the principle being to give teachers the freedom
to teach without interruption from continual exams and retakes. Kevin
Stannard of Cambridge International Examinations said:
“The
idea is to give back schools and teachers control over the
curriculum—it liberates the school and teachers, and gives them
more power over the way that they
teach”. The
assistant head at Charterhouse school
said: “The
Pre-U courses are meatier than A-levels. We were concerned that the
course content of A-levels has been nibbled
away.” 11
am The
IGCSE seems to have taken a little longer, despite 30,000 pupils in
independent schools sitting the IGCSE last year and the qualification
being hugely popular overseas. In February, Ofqual announced that it
was accrediting 15 of the IGCSEs provided by Cambridge Assessment,
including art and design, English language, English literature, French,
geography, history, maths, physics, chemistry and biology, but they are
not yet approved by the Government for funding. In effect, despite
being accredited by Ofqual, the IGCSEs are not yet available in the
state sector. The power to award funding rests with the Secretary of
State, after taking advice from the Joint Advisory Committee for
Qualifications Approval—JACQA. That committee only meets termly.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when JACQA
will meet to discuss approval for the funding of the IGCSE.
Most
commentators are confident that JACQA will approve the 15 IGCSEs. The
real worry concerns the Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools
and Learners. In a speech to the annual conference of the Association
of School and College Leaders on Friday 13 March, the Secretary of
State dismissed the IGCSE as a “marketing strategy” by
the independent sector, and the Minister for Schools and Learners is
grasping at straws when he criticises the content of the IGCSE, which
is a cloak for his opposition to the return of rigour to our exam
system. For
example, the Minister for Schools and Learners claimed that the IGCSE
would create a two-tier exam system. That is not true. We already have
a two-tier system, with the independent sector flocking to the exam,
but the state sector having its freedom to adopt the exam blocked. The
IGSCE is not like the O-level. The IGCSE, just like the GCSE, is an
all-ability exam, but one that has not been damaged by the changes
implemented over the past 10 years by the Government and the
QCA. The
Minister also argued that the IGCSE in English literature does not
require the study of a Shakespeare play. True, it does not require
that, but it is an option, and one that the vast majority of schools
that use the IGCSE take up. As Shakespeare is a requirement of the
national curriculum, every school in the state sector that adopts the
IGCSE in English literature would have to choose that requirement. It
is disingenuous of the Minister to use that as a reason for not
approving the
IGCSE. The
Minister argued that the IGCSE in maths does not have a non-calculator
paper. That is also true, but that is because the IGCSE in maths is a
test of maths and not of arithmetic, which is as it should be. In fact,
paper 4 of the mathematics IGCSE tests the application of real maths
skills to non-familiar situations. If one can do part 4, it means one
can do a non-calculator
paper. Finally,
on the issue of the oral exam in the modern French language IGCSE, the
Minister is, once again, wrong. There are oral exams in the upper and
lower-tier language IGCSEs for languages new to a student. Anyone
studying the French IGCSE who is not already fluent in the language,
either as a first or second language, takes an oral exam as part of the
qualification. The only IGCSEs in modern languages that do not have an
oral exam are what are termed “first” and
“second” language IGCSEs—there is no oral in such
exams because a certain level of familiarity is assumed, just as there
is no oral exam in GCSE English language, because exam-takers are
usually native English
speakers. The
Minister will be aware that it is a Conservative policy to allow all
secondary schools in the state sector to adopt the IGCSE if they wish,
and for that to be funded in the same way that GCSEs are. We want to
close the attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in our
country, as that gap that is widening to unacceptable levels. It is not
right that the independent sector, which educates just 15 per cent. of
sixth-form students, delivers more students with three grade As at
A-level than all the comprehensive schools put together. It is
unacceptable that one in five pupils, and half of those who qualify for
free school meals, do not achieve a single GCSE above a grade D. I
await the Minister’s
response.
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I congratulate
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on his clear
exposition. Liberal Democrat Members agree with the principles of what
has been said, because it is important that if a truly independent
Ofqual approves a qualification, the choice to take it up should be at
school—not Secretary of State—level. As an aside, we had
a ridiculous situation locally when an independent school featured low
down the league tables published by the local paper and the head
teacher had to explain that it was because the pupils had taken IGCSEs.
That was a silly situation, and not a good position for that school to
have been put
in. I
have one or two doubts about whether this is the right part of the Bill
for the provision, because it is fairly clear in the explanatory notes
that the measure is a demonstration of, for example, five GCSEs.
Presumably we could have a much longer list if we so wished. However, I
endorse the hon. Gentleman’s really important points. They were
worth discussing, and we wait to see what happens in due course about
the
pre-U.
| 
