The latest shake-up in vocational training means cutbacks in the money and time allocated to train Government-funded early years NVQ students. Mary Evans assesses the effect on staff shortages
The so-called 'level playing field' of the Government's reformed vocational training is 'littered with potholes', according to one leading provider of childcare training. Some early years funding has been halved, she said, and the natural progression of trainees from NVQ2 to NVQ3 has been halted.
The new Learning and Skills Council was established by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 as a national organisation, with 47 local arms, to be responsible from April for the planning, funding and quality assurance of all post-16 vocational learning in England. It will take over the training functions of the current network of more than 70 Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) and the funding responsibilities of the Further Education Funding Council. The Government has allocated it an annual budget of over 6 billion for funding around six million learners.
As with any reform there is a new lexicon of jargon. People taking National Vocational Qualifications, who were previously described as NVQ candidates, and more recently trainees, will now be known as 'learners' ,while this year's funding formula includes a 'dampening and cushioning effect' to minimise its impact.
Education and employment secretary David Blunkett says the Act 'gives the first-ever statutory entitlement to learning for all 16- to 19-year- olds and also for the first time gives a statutory duty on a public body to promote participation in learning'.
He said, 'One of the greatest challenges facing the country is to modernise and reform learning and skills delivery and raise the levels of achievement for every age group. In the past, a minority of people obtained the learning and skills they required. For the majority, getting a job at 16 was the order of the day. Those days have long gone.'
However, the rhetoric has not yet matched the reality. The new regime eradicates the funding anomalies created when each TEC set its own rates. But Kate Stock, training manager of Smart Training, the childcare sector's largest private training provider, says, 'It might have been intended to be a level playing field but at the moment the field is littered with potholes.'
Under the new system, which sets funding bands, the allocation for Early Years NVQ3 students aged 19 plus has been halved. Using figures produced by Staffordshire TEC, she says there would have been funding of 5,000 to 6,000 for a trainee aged 19 and over, taking an Early Years Modern Apprenticeship covering NVQ2 and NVQ3 over two to three years, but now only 2,730 will be awarded and the training period reduced. The rate for 16-18 years has been cut from 6,198 to 4,850. NVQ2s are to take 12 months for both age groups and NVQ3s 18 months for both age groups.
From April, early years students will no longer progress from NVQ2 to NVQ3 but instead they must opt to work for one or other of the qualifications. The Modern Apprenticeship scheme has been reformed and will become the:
- Foundation Modern Apprenticeship leading to NVQ level 2 and taken over 12 months, and
- the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship leading to NVQ level 3 and taken over 18 months.
Both will include training in key skills such as team working, communication, IT and problem solving.
Mrs Stock says there has been a natural progression in early years training with students working through NVQ2 and on to NVQ3. 'The new funding does not allow for that progression. They can do one or the other,' she says. 'Some students will just have to go for the NVQ2 while training providers will be under pressure to get the other students through NVQ3 in 18 months.
'There is a shortage of qualified staff in childcare and this will only make a difficult situation worse,' Mrs Stock adds. 'Some of our people take two or three years to attain NVQ3. We run an open access policy and take people from all walks of life. Some of them need a lot of support but they can do it. This timetable doesn't allow for hiccups. Students may be caring for parents, have serious school learning issues, be the only earner in the family or have a combination of problems. Why should we have to turn them down? It's discriminatory.'
Vivian Sloan, manager of the Aston Training Centre in Ealing, London, which is training about 190 people in early years, voices concerns over how the Government determined the standard time for achieving NVQs on government funded programmes. 'Who said it is going to take someone 12 months to achieve a Foundation Modern Apprenticeship in early years? Who set 18 months for an Advanced Modern Apprenticeship? All abilities must be taken into account when setting these times. When I talk to providers, no-one says they were consulted by the DfEE and the TECs can't tell providers how the DfEE got the information.'
She says it is not just the childcare sector that is facing a reduction in funding. After meetings run by West London TEC to brief training providers across the sectors on the transfer to the new regime she concludes, 'It is generic and it is not just early years that is facing a cut. It seems that most training providers will be down. The Government has worked on figures from two years ago and included the "dampening and cushioning effect", but that does not cover growth in the last year or inflation. A lot of providers are going to be between 25 per cent to 30 per cent down.'
Mrs Stock sees another bias. 'The boys' industries have done well,' she says. 'For example, funding for an engineering learner is 10,000 while the girls' industries such as childcare, hair and beauty have been hammered. In some sectors the National Training Organisations (NTOs) made big representations on behalf of the employers. We are hoping to join forces with other childcare providers and lobby for changes.'
Savita Ayling, director of the Early Years NTO, rejects suggestions that NTOs lobbied for better funding. 'As an NTO we are prohibited by our agreement of recognition from commenting on funding. It is outside our remit. It is imposed by law. This annoys and hurts us when people suggest otherwise. I can't speak for other NTOs, but it is my firm belief that no NTO would have commented on funding.
'We responded to the Government's consultation exercise but did not comment on funding. Quality is something else. If we felt quality was being compromised by the transfer from TECs to the LSC, then we would certainly be making representations.'
Flo Armstrong, Business Affairs Director of Kids Unlimited, which currently receives 400,000 over two years for its trainees, faces a cut of 120,000. She says, 'It is a lot to lose. The rate for 16-18 year-olds has not been hit so hard but we try to attract more mature people into childcare.
'Not undertaking training is not an option for us. It is great the Government is committed to developing a National Childcare Strategy but employers need support, not extra financial burdens, if we are to translate that strategy into a reality.'
Michael Thomson, managing director of the Childbase chain and chairman of the National Day Nurseries Association, worries that the move to funding training up-front rather than on qualification will have an impact on future numbers of qualified staff. 'The sector is expanding rapidly and there is already a shortage of qualified staff. We should be trying to encourage as many people as we can to pursue qualifications in childcare.'
He points to an apparent anomaly which could mean that people achieving NVQ3 by the age of 17 and a half, and therefore regarding themselves as trained, would not be counted as full members of the staff team under the new registration and inspection regulations.
Funding for early years training in the West Country, for another example, has been poor. Maureen Gard, a partner in the Exeter-based Puffins chain, says while their allocation will increase by about 10 per cent, early years qualifications should have been placed on a higher tier. She says, 'The Early Years NVQ3 involves lots of work on registration, inspection and child protection. When you look at the funding for engineering, childcare should move up the scale rather than be lumped in with health and social care.'