16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by Semta

Key points

· Work-based learning and apprenticeships are not a panacea for the disaffected and low achievers.

· Employers will require clear information upon their responsibilities towards the young people they will employ.

About Semta and the National Skills Academy for Manufacturing

Semta is the employer-led skills council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies in the UK . Its National Skills Academy for Manufacturing delivers an independent national standard for manufacturing training content, delivery and process by focusing on business return which is typically 6:1.

Impact of the EMA

What impact has the Education Maintenance Allowance on the participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people and how effective will be the Discretionary Learner Support Fund in replacing it?

1. Initially, the introduction of the EMA was a concern for employers, who felt it was being offered to young people as an incentive to remain in full-time education, and not to consider employment and work-based training programmes post-16. Many engineering and manufacturing employers recruit at 16 onto their challenging and exciting Advanced Level Apprenticeship programmes, and feel keenly the competition from schools (particularly those with sixth forms) and colleges offering A levels. Despite paying significantly more than the EMA in terms of salary, employers felt young people were being ‘guided’ by the introduction of EMA towards the academic route.

2. However, as the EMA was extended to support those on Programme-led apprenticeship programmes and other learning, EMA became a useful tool in recruiting appropriate young people onto a whole range of courses.

Preparing for raising the participation age

What preparations are necessary, for providers and local authorities, for the gradual raising of the participation age to 18 years and what is their current state of readiness?

3. Employers are not intrinsically hostile to the concept of raising the learning leaving age, particularly for those who have failed to achieve in a traditional school environment. However, they are concerned that appropriate alternative provision is available for those young people post-16 – if an individual has failed to grasp the basics of numeracy and literacy in eleven years of compulsory schooling, it is unlikely that two years of ‘more of the same’ will have a better outcome. It is also imperative that work-based learning is not seen as the only solution for these individuals. While many young people who have failed to achieve in an academic environment find that they thrive in the different atmosphere of the workplace and college, some will struggle with the demands of programmes such as apprenticeships. The right advice and guidance will be paramount to directing individuals to the right route post-16.

4. Employers will need guidance on the recruitment and support of young people aged 16-18, with clear information on the responsibilities of each party. For example, if an employer recruits a young person, will the employer be responsible for ensuring their attendance on accredited training, particularly where the training is happening off the employer’s premises?

The impact of raising the participation age

What impact will raising the participation age have on areas such as academic achievement, access to vocational education and training, student attendance and behaviour, and alternative provision?

5. The original proposals to raise the participation age (Raising Expectations: staying in education and training post-16, March 2007) contained some alarming predictions regarding the destinations of young people currently not in learning at 16 and 17. Two tables (Table 4.2 and 4.3) showed a significant increase in the numbers of young people in ‘Work-based learning’:

6. Most employers in science, engineering, and manufacturing technology industries who recruit young people under the age of 18 do so onto accredited programmes, such as apprenticeships. This is because working in these sectors requires a understanding of key areas such as health and safety, basic engineering practices, good communication, and teamworking before an individual can actually enter the workplace and be productive. Therefore, our employers’ concerns relate less to whether they would be forced to offer training to young employees, and more to how the programmes which they use and trust might be compromised if they were changed to accommodate low achievers and the disaffected.

7. Semta welcomed the previous government’s enthusiasm for apprenticeships and its support for this key programme through promotion and funding. We did however have concerns that ‘targets’ for apprenticeships were not properly understood as being reliant on appropriate training places being available.

8. This government has taken a less prescriptive approach to apprenticeships in terms of targets, and we welcome John Hayes’ clear articulation that government aspirations for increasing apprenticeships can only be met by employers taking more people onto these programmes. For this, the programme has to be made ever more attractive to new apprentice employers, easier to scale up for existing apprentice employers, and the barriers to take-up need to be addressed.

9. In some ways, the Programme-Led apprenticeship approach was successful in attracting new employers and encouraging extra recruitment from existing employers. This is because it was particularly suited to the engineering apprenticeship model, which begins with 3-9 months ‘off-the-job’ in college and in a training centre, learning the key areas mentioned previously. Engineering apprenticeship providers are expert in creating simulated environments which enable the individual to begin to gather the skills and competence necessary to work safely and effectively.

10. Under the PLA, employers were able to recruit young people who had completed this initial training, this reducing their costs and also the risk which comes from recruiting an individual directly into an area where they have no prior experience. Employed engineering apprentices traditionally receive a significant salary from the first day of training, even though they are attending a provider and not contributing to the company initially. Through PLA, employers were able to reduce their salary costs and recruit only those young people who had demonstrated their ability and commitment to an engineering career by completing the initial training while receiving the EMA. Small firms in particular, which can struggle to maintain the cost of an apprentice in the early months when the individual is in the training provider, but drawing a salary, were particularly interested in the PLA approach.

11. With the PLA approach being removed, even more will need to be done to help employers understand the benefits of recruitment of young people onto apprenticeships pre-18, if work-based learning is to play its role in providing an alternative to continuing in school.

12. As mentioned previously, we have also been concerned that work-based learning was seen as a solution to the most problematic section of 16-18 year olds – those Not in Education, Employment or Training, and those lacking basic competence in numeracy and literacy. Without proper guidance for the individual, and support for the employer, there is a danger that work-based learning is viewed as a ‘dumping ground’ for those incapable of appropriate level learning, or unwilling to learn at all.

13. If the projected increase of nearly 50% in young people undertaking work-based learning (including apprenticeships) is to be achieved, it is therefore imperative that the following is considered:

· Appropriate support and funding for employers to enable them to take on additional young people in jobs with training (including apprenticeship)

· Support for Sector Skills Councils to continue developing frameworks, standards and qualifications which meet the needs of both employers and individuals

· Proper advice and guidance for young people on their choices, making clear the requirements of academic, vocational, and work-based routes post-16

· Clear information for employers on their responsibilities to young people

14. Some employers may raise the recruitment age for their apprenticeship schemes to 18 (following the example of employers in some specialist industries, such as aerospace and nuclear), and increase their entry requirement correspondingly.

15. Others will wish to continue recruiting young people at 16 and 17, particularly onto Level 2 programmes such as the Intermediate Level Apprenticeship.

25th March 2011