Apprenticeships

APP 32

Written evidence submitted by Professor Alison Fuller

and Professor Lorna Unwin

Executive Summary

· NAS has delivered on numbers, but at the expense of quality. There is confusion as to who is ultimately responsible for the well-being of apprentices, and the improvement of quality.

· Availability of and access to robust data on apprenticeship participation, employment status (pre and post apprenticeship), achievement and progression remain highly problematic.

· Funding focuses almost exclusively on numbers and targets. The flow of funding cascades through several layers before reaching the employer and the apprentice – how much is really being spent on actual training?

· Because the vast majority of apprenticeship growth has come through ‘converting’ existing employees, the service sectors now dominate. What is being done to boost apprenticeships in high-tech sectors crucial to economic recovery and how many new jobs have been created?

· Apprenticeship Training Agencies (ATAs) have contributed to the growth in apprenticeship numbers, but should we be using the term ‘apprenticeship’ for programmes that only require 16 hours per week in the workplace?

· Our minimalist standards set England apart from leading apprenticeship countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark.

· To improve quality, Apprenticeship Hubs (connecting employers, FE and HE and specialist providers) should be created to act as guardians of apprenticeship for specific industries based within designated travel-to-work areas.

· ‘Conversion’ should only be allowed if it is clear the employer needs an individual to substantially develop their skills beyond the level of their current job.

· Our best apprenticeships are World Class. They provide a solid platform for occupational and educational progression. We should use their ‘expansive’ features as the standard to which all apprenticeships aspire. Expanding Level 3 without strengthening content will not in itself improve quality.

1. Introduction

1.1 This submission draws on our research into apprenticeship in the UK since the introduction of Modern Apprenticeship. [1] In 1994, our research had been funded by a range of agencies, including government and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). We have also been involved in international studies for such organisations as the OECD and the European Commission, and consult closely with research colleagues specialising in apprenticeship in many countries. Our Expansive-Restrictive (E&R) Framework is being used by employers and training providers as well as researchers in this country and overseas to support quality improvement in apprenticeship. The Framework comprises a set of characteristics which underpin the organisation of apprenticeship: i) the relationship of the apprenticeship to the business; ii) the way an apprentice’s work and training are organised; iii) the pedagogical approach within the workplace and beyond; and iv) the use of qualifications as a platform for progression (see Figure 1 at the end of this document).

1.2 In 2008, we were commissioned by the then Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to use the E&R Framework as the basis for a practical guide to support employers and training providers in England. [2] In 2008/09, we acted as Special Advisers to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee for their Scrutiny of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.

2. How successful has the NAS been since it was created in April 2009? Has it helped bridge the gap between the two funding departments?

2.1. The answer to this question depends on the criteria used to judge success. On its own website, NAS states that its remit is ‘to support, fund and coordinate the delivery of apprenticeships in England’. This signals a narrow focus on systems and numbers. We know from the recent statistics on ‘starts’ that the overall goal of increasing numbers regardless of age, level, sector or equity is being achieved. But this begs the question as to whether this is an adequate definition of success.

2.2. The NAS website also indicates that NAS’s role includes simplifying the process of recruiting and helping to match apprentices and employers. Given that the numbers of employers involved remains relatively small and overall the system is still very provider-led, we should ask to what extent NAS is delivering on the aspiration for this to be an employer-led programme. Furthermore, given that the vast majority of people who start an apprenticeship are already employed with the employer with whom they start their apprenticeship (‘conversions’), or are ‘employed’ by an Apprenticeship Training Agency (ATA) with placements with a ‘host employer’, we can question whether NAS has made a meaningful contribution to the creation of new jobs. Clearly given the continued and longstanding concerns about quality, we would argue that government has asked NAS to work with an impoverished vision of apprenticeship and, hence, the criteria for success are largely confined to achieving growth in numbers.

2.3. The task of bridging two departments is not new. Prior to the creation of NAS, the LSC was responsible for apprenticeship and bridged the then departments of DIUS and DCSF, whilst NAS, which focuses only on apprenticeship, bridges the two current departments, BIS and DfE. Addressing whether NAS has helped bridge ‘the gap’ depends on whose perspective is being taken. It also begs the question of what the Joint Apprenticeship Unit (JAU) is for. NAS acts as the sole ‘face’ of apprenticeship so saves employers and other stakeholders having to wrestle with the two departments and machinery of government.

2.4. Knowledgeable outsiders may, however, still scratch their heads as to what status NAS has vis à vis the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), the JAU and the two departments. A visit to the SFA website indicates that NAS is ‘housed within SFA’, and that complaints about NAS go through the SFA, as do Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The SFA website states that the aim of NAS is ‘to increase the number of apprenticeships available’. So, when the issue of quality is discussed at government level, are all these agencies involved? Who takes the lead, and who does the Minister listen to? This is important because key stakeholders on the outside of government often find it difficult to know where to direct their opinions and questions. Perhaps the starkest illustration of this confusion about who exactly is in charge comes in relation to access to data on apprenticeship. When the Modern Apprenticeship was introduced in 1994, the then DfEE published publicly available statistics on every aspect of apprenticeship participation and attainment, and there were named officials you could contact to discuss the data and answer queries. This practice continued for some time under the LSC. Now, the only available information is in the SFR which is restricted to a general level of detail insufficient for any detailed analysis.

2.5. To obtain any detailed statistics you have to apply to the Data Service who can be obstructive and treat enquiries with great suspicion. At best, they will take several weeks to provide data. Another strategy is to put in an FOI request, but this also takes considerable time and does not always provide the data requested (data which would previously have been readily available). As researchers, we are regularly contacted by a range of interested parties trying to piece together the hard evidence they need to inform their research, policy and practice, and to substantiate rumours that regularly circulate about apprenticeship performance and the use of public money. To find answers involves trying to speak to unnamed officials in different departments and agencies in the hope of finding someone who can provide robust information that can be quoted. There is no information on the NAS website to indicate who the people are or who to contact, there’s no organisational structure, or indication of who’s on the Board.

3. Is the extra funding promised by the coalition government necessary for apprenticeships? How can this funding best be spent?

3.1. It is not clear what ‘extra funding’ really means or what the funding pays for. Currently, there’s a direct link between funding and starts: extra funding is supposed to deliver a number of extra starts, often specified by starts per age group. For example, on 1st December 2011, government announced additional funding for 19,000 Higher Apprenticeships. Every time there’s a statement about funding, it’s always tied to additional apprenticeship numbers and not to improving the quality of training. There’s never a statement, for example, that says there’ll be an allocation of X million pounds to support the training of vocational teachers and trainers.

3.2. Funding for apprenticeship is diluted through multiple steps in the funding allocation chain – BIS→SFA→NAS→ Providers→Employers→Apprentices – along the way, other organisations take a slice (e.g. Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network, Sector Skills Councils, UKCES, Awarding Bodies, ATAs, GTAs). The money pays for a range of administrative tasks, for the cost of qualifications, assessment and accreditation, inspection, and for wages. For example, Awarding Bodies benefit greatly from apprenticeship. In the past, they provided significant levels of curricula and pedagogical support to their ‘centres’ (e.g. FE colleges), but this has declined in recent years. The key question we wish to raise is: How much money is actually spent on training as opposed to these other costs?

3.4. Resources should be focused on apprenticeships that have substantial amounts of training at their heart and not on converting existing employees to apprentices in order to certificate their existing skills without further development. Apprenticeship is a model of learning that takes the form of a journey towards occupational mastery. It can be very important and motivating for employees to be awarded qualifications that recognise their skills, but that is a different matter and should not be confused with apprenticeship.

4. Are apprenticeships of high enough quality to benefit apprentices and their employers? Should there be more L3 apprenticeships?

4.1 The current system is not designed to create consistently high quality provision, but rather to deliver numbers. Whilst there continue to be examples of ‘world class’ apprenticeships in England, too many align with the restrictive characteristics of our E&R Framework (see figure at end of this document). Three key systemic problems need to be tackled:

· The provider-led approach has separated the recruitment of apprentices from long-
term business need.

· ‘Expansive’ employers are treated exactly the same as those providing low quality apprenticeships – there is no incentive for maintaining quality.

· Apprenticeship has become predominantly a vehicle for delivering government mandated qualifications, hence ‘conversions’ (of 16-18 year olds as well as 19+) are the easiest way for providers and NAS to meet their targets.

4.2. An increasing number of 16-24 year old apprentices are now employed by an Apprentice Training Agency (ATA), which hires them out to local ‘host’ employers for a minimum of 16 hours per week (the period also required for ‘full-time study’ in schools and colleges), and with limited prospects of a job at the end of the programme. It is unacceptable that data on the proportion of apprentice starts that are ‘conversions’ or who are employed by ATAs are not currently publicly available. In response to an FOI request we made asking if the percentage of ‘conversions’ had changed at all since the LSC told the Select Committee in 2008 [3] that conversions accounted for over 70% of apprentices in all age groups, the answer from the SFA was:

"I can advise that the Agency holds no data on the number of apprentices
classed as ‘conversions’ rather than ‘new starts’."

4.3. A key issue for quality is that apprenticeship frameworks must have a minimum of 280 Guided Learning Hours (GLH) per year, equivalent to about a day a week over 36 weeks, but only 100 hours are required to be actually ‘off-the-job’ (i.e. 2 hours a week). [4] In relation to apprenticeships for young people, this sets England apart from leading apprenticeship countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, which specify the content of apprenticeships in some detail, including the proportions of time to be spent in structured on-the-job and off-the-job training in vocational schools (usually two days we week), and the proportions which will be devoted to general education and vocational subjects respectively. In addition, these countries, unlike England, specify the overall length of the programme (usually 2 to 4 years depending on the occupation). Any apprenticeship, regardless of the occupational sector, will last a minimum of two years. Unless the content of apprenticeship is strengthened, simply increasing the number at Level 3 will have no impact on quality. In addition, the majority of Level 3 frameworks do not accrue UCAS tariff points, which undermines government’s claim (repeated on countless provider websites) that an Advanced Apprenticeship can lead straightforwardly to a place in HE.

4.4 In the current climate of high unemployment, achieving expansive apprenticeships is very challenging. Our current research in cities such as Southampton and Manchester shows that there is scope to bring resources together from a range of public funding initiatives to create and provide access to apprenticeships for unemployed young people (NEETs) and adults, which also meets the needs of employers.

5. Apprenticeship bonuses – how should they function? Will they encourage the involvement of SMEs? If not what will?

5.1. To enable more SMEs to become involved requires a rebalancing of responsibility and a new commitment to a shared understanding of what counts as a quality apprenticeship. At the moment everything is driven by the State with the focus on targets and political goals. This brings with it a contracting culture whereby all the stakeholders are incentivised to simply fulfil the minimalist requirements of the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards in England (SASE). To overcome this, we propose the creation of Apprenticeship Hubs to act as guardians of apprenticeship for specific industries based within designated travel-to-work areas. At the heart of each Hub would be a group of industry experts from local companies, Group Training Associations (GTAs), and SSCs, together with experts from further and higher education institutions and specialist private training providers. The Hubs would have a public responsibility for moderating standards for apprenticeships in their area and awarding completion certificates. This would position apprenticeship as an engine for economic growth at the local level, enable the showcasing of innovative vocational pedagogy, and provide a focus for the celebration of achievements. The Hubs would provide the mechanism for closer FE/HE collaboration to develop the knowledge-based elements of Advanced and Higher Apprenticeship so that the means for progression are firmly embedded in all programmes.

6. Is the current funding arrangement of 100% for 16-18 and 50% for 19-24 appropriate?

6.1. The key question is: what is public funding of apprenticeship for? It should pay to support the training costs associated with skill formation in intermediate-level jobs. The State has to contribute because good quality apprenticeships are the vehicle for providing the country with a well-trained adaptable workforce that has the capacity to carry on developing expertise. The ‘100%’ actually means the State pays for training required to complete the framework. Expansive employers then top this up because they know much more is required to reach the standard they need. There is a strong economic and social case for the State to fund apprenticeships across the age range (16-24) at 100%. As we’ve said above, there’s an urgent need to reveal how much is spent on training and how much of the state’s contribution is being squandered.

2 February 2012

Figure 1: The Expansive - Restrictive Framework

EXPANSIVE	RESTRICTIVE
Apprenticeship is a vehicle for aligning goals of individual development and organisational capability	Apprenticeship used to tailor individual capability to immediate organisational need
Workplace, training provider and (where present) trade union share post-Apprenticeship vision: progression for career	Post-Apprenticeship vision: static for job
Apprentice has dual status as learner and employee	Status as employee dominates: status as learner restricted to minimum required to meet statutory ‘Apprenticeship Framework’
Apprentice makes gradual transition to productive worker, gaining expertise in occupational field	Fast transition to productive worker with limited knowledge of occupational field; existing productive workers given minimal development
Apprentice treated as member of occupational and workplace community with access to community’s rules, history, knowledge and expertise	Apprentice treated as extra pair of hands who only needs access to limited knowledge and skills to perform job
Apprentice participates in different communities of practice inside and outside the workplace	Participation restricted to narrowly-defined job role and work station
Workplace maps everyday work tasks against qualification requirements – qualification valued as extending beyond immediate job requirements	Weak relationship between workplace tasks and qualifications – no recognition for skills and knowledge acquired beyond immediate work tasks
Qualifications develop knowledge for progression to next level and platform for further education	Qualifications accredit limited range of on-the-job competence
Apprentice has time off-the-job for study and to gain wider perspective	Off-the-job simply a minor extension of on-the-job
Apprentice’s existing skills and knowledge recognised, valued and used as platform for new learning	Apprentices regarded as ‘blank sheets’ or ‘empty vessels’
Apprentice’s progress closely monitored - regular constructive feedback from range of employer and provider personnel who take a holistic approach	Apprentice’s progress monitored for job performance with limited feedback – provider involvement restricted to formal assessments for qualifications