Apprenticeships

APP 02

Written evidence submitted by Green Lantern Training

I am a training provider who has delivered the Hospitality Apprenticeship programme for 15 years. In the early years I did this through direct contracts with the Training Enterprise Councils and latterly as a sub-contractor of a number of FE Colleges. I am a small provider, who works on my own with occasional input from a number of Associates. I operate primarily in the South West of England. I am an Awarding Centre of City and Guilds.

How successful has the National Apprenticeship Service been since it was created in April 2009? Has it helped bridge the gap between the two funding Departments? (BIS and Department for Education)

 

I am aware of very little positive impact the NAS has had on my programme or my students. The Apprenticeship vacancy service has been of no benefit to me, my students or the employers that I work with, who are all SMEs. The candidates I take on are currently employed and none of the employers have taken on staff because they will become Apprentices. None of the employers I have worked with were comfortable with paying their staff the minimum wage of £2.50 when they became aware of the possibility. They would not have used the Vacancy matching service, preferring to take on local people either through word of mouth, direct applicants or through the Job Centre.

I have had contact with the local NAS twice, neither of which was particularly helpful. The first occasion was the '100 for 100' scheme which one of my FE Colleges asked me to be involved with. The NAS stated that my company would not be given any publicity in exchange for the £800 I was asked to contribute to the initiative, as they 'could not be seen to be favouring any particular provider'.

The second was when I was asked by the Apprenticeship team in a local council to give them the names of any students I recruited in the area so they could include those candidates in their achievement target. When I asked what I would get in return I was told nothing, as the Borough Council 'could not be seen to be favouring any particular provider'. It was suggested that I contact the NAS who might be able to help me with marketing the programme in the local area. I did, but was told by the NAS representative that they could not help me because they 'could not be seen to be favouring any particular provider'.

I, my candidates and my employers would not notice any difference if the NAS ceased to exist

As a footnote, I see some £6 million has been given to People 1st (the Hospitality SSC) to develop vocational programmes - they are using it to set up what looks like a replication of the NAS Vacancy service- why? It hasn't worked for the NAS!

 

Is the extra funding promised by the Coalition Government necessary for apprenticeships? How can this funding best be spent?

The funding currently directed at Apprenticeships is spent in the wrong way. The faults with the current situation are as follows:

1. The concept that is promoted is not what is actually delivered, because that is not what is actually funded. What is currently funded, therefore delivered, is the achievement of 4 basic qualifications (2 if the candidate has Maths and English GCSEs). The funding for these qualifications only covers the most basic delivery of them, once all other operational and administrative costs are taken into account. Once SNAFUs are factored in then the qualification has to be delivered in the shortest time that is appropriate, to avoid the inevitable cash flow crises.

2. The funding should be directed at fewer Apprenticeship frameworks, with fewer candidates but funding longer programmes with virtually all Government Departments and Quango input removed.

 

Are apprenticeships of a high enough quality to benefit apprentices and their employers? Should there be more Level 3 apprenticeships?

1. You need to decide what the primary objective of the Apprenticeship is before you can judge whether it is of sufficient quality. The Government has allowed the original concept to drift, introduced mission creep and most other sins have been committed in the name of Government procurement

- starting from a position of distrust (excessive and inappropriate inspection and auditing),

- centrally imposed and inappropriate frameworks (employers and candidates do not value key skills

- what they want is all children leaving school who can read, write and add up),

- unrealistic targets made worse by a fundamental lack of understanding of what businesses need in terms of skills. GLH and minimum 12 month programmes do not guarantee quality - you know that, we know that and the fact that it will result in higher costs in an already underfunded programme, higher dropout rates and increased irritation from employers and candidates has not stopped you from imposing it for no better reason than it 'reassures' people - or MPs anyway

- insufficient funding - tell me, how do you deliver a key skill for £130 (what I get) which is supposed to replicate what was supposed to be covered in 10 years of full time education? The amount I get to deliver the NVQ only just covers the direct and indirect costs - it does not cover travel, liaison with the employer and contractor, times spent o n audits and inspections and office costs. If anything goes wrong, if there are any delays in payments (which happens regularly) then we are immediately into a loss-making situation.

 

2. The number of Level 3 Apprenticeships is immaterial - as long as the frameworks are based on NVQs then candidates will be restricted by their job roles anyway - I have candidates who would love to do a Level 3 but can't because that would mean they would need to find another job (impossible right now) and get promoted (difficult right now as people are staying in their jobs because they can't find another one).

 

3. We have been waiting for over 2 years for People 1st (the Hospitality SSC) to produce the Higher Apprenticeship and they still have not done that. Quangos slow down or stop innovation, they are not architects of it.

Apprenticeship bonuses – how should they function? Will they encourage the involvement of more small and medium sized businesses to take on apprentices? If not what will?

 

1. Bonuses will get their attention but I doubt it will dramatically increase the involvement of SMEs. They know that the funding will be withdrawn quickly and that very few of them will get it anyway.

 

2. See the next question for what will encourage them to take on Apprentices.

Is the current funding arrangement for training of apprentices of 100% for 16-18 year olds and 50% for 19-24 year olds appropriate?

1. It is completely inappropriate. In the 15 years and 500 odd candidates I have taken through the programme I have not noticed any discernible difference in how long the two age groups take to get through the programme. The effect that policy has had is to make it almost impossible to deliver Level 2 programmes for the 19-24 age group without incurring losses.

What an Apprenticeship should be

1. A programme of training agreed between the employer and the training provider - if one is used at all, the employer might use internal resources. It may, or may not, lead to qualifications

2. SMEs can be paid to over train staff and additional staff they would not normally have taken on. This will create a pool of well trained employees who are more employable and gradually raise standards within the sector. In time employees will expect to be put through a development programme and employers will expect their more senior recruits to have been through one.

3. It is completely employer driven with skills outcomes agreed in return for Government funding. Under this system the SFA, NAS, Ofqual, Ofsted and SSCs are obsolete - the Awarding Bodies will be required to maintain standards and produce qualifications that people and companies want to pay for.

 

I fully intend to take advantage of the £250 million pilot funding to work with employers I have contact with, to create programmes with them that they want and need, either individually or as a Group. This will prove that the organisations listed above are irrelevant to genuine work based learning.

Trudi Stevens
Director

26 December 2011