Further education is one of the public sector’s Cinderellas – chronically neglected by policymakers who care more about schools. The government’s latest white paper is a welcome attempt to rectify this. If the plan succeeds, it would go some way towards fulfilling Labour’s pledge to break down barriers that block opportunities for too many young people.

But there is no simple way to enhance the status of further education colleges while also raising the quality of job-linked training and adult education more widely. Previous attempts have not gone well. Overall, investment in non-academic training has dropped calamitously since 2010. The apprenticeship levy scheme introduced by the Conservatives in 2017 was a dismal failure, as employers spent the money on existing employees rather than entry-level opportunities. The take-up of new T-levels, which were meant to raise the status of technical learning to match A-levels, has been disappointing.

Predictably, given what is already known about the government’s priorities, the industries singled out for special treatment include defence, artificial intelligence, green energy and construction. The last even has its own target: 60,000 new jobs. By contrast, jobs in social care and the creative industries are virtually ignored – which is disappointing if unsurprising.

The detail of how responsibility for the new system is to be divided between the one-year-old national body, Skills England, and regional authorities is still to be worked out. But the devolving principle is sound. If employers are to be made accountable for their role in shaping local labour markets and bridging the “skills chasm” that divides London and the south-east from other parts of England, elected politicians must be empowered. Increased flexibility around the levy scheme should be beneficial. In return for the freedom to offer shorter, non-apprenticeship courses, employers must improve their offer to new starters.

Bridget Phillipson deserves credit for a recent funding increase to colleges, although the gap with school budgets – and pay – remains deeply unfair. But the recent decision to transfer responsibility for skills training away from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions makes sense overall. Ministers are right to be concerned about the 1 million people aged 16-24 who are not in education or work. They now have an opportunity to rectify past mistakes on welfare and build new pathways between jobcentres, training and jobs.

Such rational changes risk being undermined, however, by poorly thought through reform of the qualifications landscape. More relaxed rules around maths and English GCSE retakes are a step in the right direction. But the best thing about the new V-levels announced by Ms Phillipson is their neat name. The decision to axe existing courses, including BTecs, before these new vocational options are even ready has left colleges reeling. If ministers don’t rethink this overhasty move, they risk adding to – rather than reducing – the number of 16- to 19-year-olds who end up underqualified and out of work.

Urgent though the higher education funding crisis is, universities would have been better dealt with in a separate document. Their presence in this one only adds to the impression that further education and skills are not regarded as weighty enough on their own. Ministers now need to show that they will take the college sector’s response to their proposals as seriously as it deserves.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.