Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, Amendment 153 was debated in the Commons but we feel it is worth bringing forward here because we were not satisfied with the answer that came from the Commons. The numbers studying for A-levels and other level 2 and 3 qualifications in FE colleges and sixth-form colleges are considerably greater than in school sixth forms and yet for the past 20 to 30 years—indeed, ever since the college sector emerged as an alternative provider of education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds—the per capita funding per pupil in the colleges has been considerably lower than that received by schools for sixth-form pupils. Traditionally schools with sixth-forms have received quite generous funding for their 16 to 19 sixth-form cohort. Whether running A-level courses or vocational courses it has been accepted that class sizes are often very small, sometimes as few as, or even fewer than, half a dozen and that the degree, therefore, of personal tuition is high. This in turn reflects on costs. In the old days of block grants, schools used to cross-subsidise their sixth forms. Once this was translated into funding formulas, it was reflected in a generous funding of the "standard learner numbers" for those over 16 and remaining in school. By contrast, colleges, which have traditionally concentrated on post-16 courses, have been funded on the basis of standard class sizes, with additional funding only for those with learning difficulties. When the LSC took over in 2001, the gap was more than 20 per cent; by 2005, when Ruth Kelly was the Secretary of State, it stood at 10 per cent, and she famously promised to eliminate it. Sadly it is still there. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the existence of this gap to the attention of Ministers and to make a last ditch attempt to eliminate it. Given that more students study post-16 in further education colleges and sixth-form colleges than in schools, it is cheaper and more efficient to provide teaching in these establishments. Can Ministers really justify a situation in which they encourage and subsidise the less efficient route? Indeed, in recent years they have been encouraging schools that have not so far had sixth forms to set up new sixth forms. We know that many pupils would be better off studying more practical vocational courses rather than being corralled into A-levels, yet shockingly few teachers have any knowledge of those vocational routes to higher-level qualifications. In the evidence that the Edge foundation provided to the Skills Commission, for example, it was revealed that 75 per cent of teachers admitted to knowing nothing about apprenticeships, and yet teachers are one of the biggest influences on young people in the careers that they choose. The emphasis on GCSE and the A-level route means that a disproportionate number of young people at age 16 opt for this route because it is what they, their parents and their teachers know about. It is shocking that these colleges, which already take a disproportionate number of young people from the more disadvantaged homes for 16-plus education, should receive less per student than the schools. It reflects, in many senses, an outdated class system that should have been eliminated long ago. As I have said, Ruth Kelly promised in 2005 to eliminate the gap. The college sector is still waiting for Ministers to honour that promise, and I hope that they will do so today. I beg to move.