| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
12 Oct 2009 : Column 103
Lord Young of Norwood Green: The best thing that I can do is write on that specific point about deprived areas, because I do not have the information to hand.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I congratulate the Government on having reduced the differential during the past year. It is very good news to hear that it has been so substantially reduced. We all recognise that increasing public expenditure at the moment is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Nevertheless, it is worth recording, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so clearly said, that it is more expensive to expand vocational than academic provision. The kind of equipment that will be needed for the additional young people staying on and taking vocational courses is much more elaborate than much of what will be needed in sixth forms. That is something that will have to be borne in mind.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his response, but it is not a very adequate one. I congratulate him on reducing the figure from 14 per cent in 2004-05 to 6 per cent now-that is an 8 per cent reduction. Yes, that is good. However, I had hoped he would say that the Government would sustain that continuing reduction and that they would have in sight, for perhaps 2011-12, a total elimination. It is madness that they are proposing to allow schools that currently do not have sixth forms to promote them to teach vocational subjects when they have neither staff nor the equipment to teach them properly. It is incredibly expensive to do so. Yes, it is all part of raising the participation age, but this is a very expensive programme. In the colleges, there is a very efficient way in which to teach these things. The Increased Flexibility programme, which used to be so successful, has largely been closed down. I hope that the Government are now beginning to expand the young apprenticeship programme. That is what I would like to see.
Colleges take some of the more difficult learners, and are compensated when they have statements and so forth, but they are not completely compensated, and are currently providing an incredible service to the country in terms of helping many of those people to achieve qualifications that they would not be expected to achieve in schools. Yet we are not rewarding those colleges or even promising them that they will get an amount equivalent to what their sixth-form comparators are getting.
If college lecturers move to a school and teach the sixth form, they are paid more than as a lecturer. That is very galling because they are teaching the same subject. One of the reasons that colleges cannot pay them more is because this differential exists. I hope that the Government can come back and promise us that they will sustain the reduction rather than just sustain the margin.
9.45 pm
Lord Young of Norwood Green:I want to examine some of the points made by the noble Baroness because I cannot give a comprehensive answer to all of them. I sense some validity and concur with the noble Baroness. In my journey around FE colleges I, too, have been
12 Oct 2009 : Column 104
Baroness Sharp of Guildford:I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It would be good if he could take this away. The whole college sector would be much encouraged by that. I know in these days of the credit crunch and so forth it will not be easy, but it would be encouraging for them. After all, they will be taking a huge increase in the number of students with the raising of the learning participation age. They are a key player in this and it would be a great factor if the Government really want to boost morale in that sector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 61 : Performance Assessments.
153A: Clause 61, page 45, line 19, at end insert-
"( ) When the YLPA devises the funding formulae on performance it shall ensure that no education provider will be financially disadvantaged for enrolling disabled students onto their mainstream courses."
Lord Addington: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 211A. The aim of these amendments is to expose what may be an unintentional result of some of the changes that the Government are proposing. The amendments were suggested by the Alliance for Inclusive Education, also known as Alfie. The alliance suggests that the Government's new funding structure may punish those who bring people with learning disabilities and other disabled groups on to courses that they may not be able to complete, although they have traditionally taken part and benefited from that learning process. Those people can acquire skills on a mainstream course and get some benefit from it, but will probably not be able to finish the entire course. That is the fear, and these amendments encapsulate that.
It has been suggested to me that the Learning and Skills Council withdraws up to 10 per cent for students who do not successfully gain a qualification. If you
12 Oct 2009 : Column 105
Also, what tends to happen is that funding can be acquired, as I was told by this group, for more discrete courses, which often do not lead to as meaningful a qualification or learning capacity, but where you are guaranteed 100 per cent. This fear is very real, and it seems to be based on fact. Can the Government assure us that they will make more flexible arrangements that will mean that this does not take place? I think this is simply a case of trying to get a "one-size-fits-all" package. It does not apply to the best practice of the past, so can we go back and make sure that we allow people who have been undertaking and benefiting from courses back in? A small allowance or discretionary ability somewhere would probably address this.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response on this point. Really, they do not seem to be asking for very much. Also, if it has happened in the past, why get rid of good practice? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising these very important concerns. I am sure I speak for both sides of the Committee when I say that we would not wish there to be any situation where an education provider would be discouraged from accommodating students, in the way that the noble Lord described, because they might risk a reduction in funding. We are looking to the Minister for some reassurance on this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have seen the arguments from ALLFIE, the Alliance for Inclusive Education, which argues that,
- "education providers who would like to give greater opportunities for disabled learners wishing to access mainstream educational opportunities are financially penalised if the learners are unable successfully to complete the qualification".
What we are looking for this evening is an assurance from the Minister that this will not happen under the new organisation. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that the Government have no intention of allowing disabled students to be discriminated against in this way. I will just say that even a perception of disadvantage accompanying accepting disabled students could be very damaging. That would be very worrying indeed. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, just to reassure education providers that this will not be the case.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: Amendments 153A and 211A reflect the concerns of such organisations as the Alliance for Inclusive Education that there are no barriers to participation in further education for young people and adults with learning difficulties. There is a particular concern that funding on the basis of completions discourages colleges from enrolling students with learning difficulties. Please let me reassure noble Lords that both departments fully recognise and support the need to ensure access for all learners and that, where appropriate, this should be to mainstream provision.
12 Oct 2009 : Column 106
Mainstream provision is already widely accessed by such learners. In the last financial year there were approximately 320,000 learners who self-declared having a learning difficulty or disability in mainstream further education provision. This represents 13 per cent of all learners. This success has been achieved through excellent work across the FE sector in supporting students and additional funding being made available by the Government. For example, the Invest to Change programme is investing £66 million over a three-year period specifically to improve the accessibility of local provision. It is also important to note that success factors such as completion rates are just one of a wide-ranging set of weightings that are used to calculate funding rates. Colleges receive extra funding through additional learner support, which they can use to ensure that the needs of learners with learning difficulties and/or other special requirements are met.
The Skills Funding Agency will monitor colleges' and other providers' performance in ensuring access through the Framework for Excellence. This quantitative performance monitoring tool will incentivise providers to be responsive to the needs of learners and will include indicators on learner views and learner destinations, encompassing, of course, learners with learning difficulties.
The framework will provide data to enable those making funding decisions to assure themselves that there is no unfair treatment in terms of inclusion, access, or delivery of services. Ofsted will also continue to look at the accessibility of provision and support provided to learners with learning difficulties as part of its quality assurance process. We are continuing to work with ALLFIE and other stakeholders on this issue as we move forward in this area. I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about this vital issue.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: I did not mean to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: It has been a long day. I hope that with the comprehensive range of assurances that we have given, noble Lords will recognise our commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities or learning difficulties are not disadvantaged and that colleges do not in any way feel a disincentive as regards catering for those students. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, many colleges are responding well to that challenge. However, there is no room for complacency, which is why we have included the extra measures that I have described. I hope that on the basis of those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for that response and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support. This is something of a first. I do not think
12 Oct 2009 : Column 107
I appreciate the noble Lord's response. There is fear in this regard. I hope that he does not take this in the wrong spirit but we need to look through the relevant list to see whether we have killed it dead. That is very important. We need to ensure that we have dealt with this properly. The perception within colleges is also very important. We may have to follow up this point to
12 Oct 2009 : Column 108
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |