Apprenticeships

APP 43

 

Written evidence submitted by the West Midlands Training Provider Network

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)

We believe NAS has provided a national profile for the Apprenticeship brand and their support in organising local and regional events has been well received. The Vacancy Matching Service, AV, has had an impact but is still highly controversial in terms of ‘other’ organisations filling vacancies deemed as ‘not their employer’.

In terms of bridging the gap, the two departments have very different objectives and the tensions and mixed messages are very apparent at times. The creation of multi-agencies, including NAS, has added greater complexity and confusion within the market. There was an assumption when NAS came into being that colleges and private providers were not engaging with businesses or potential learners, yet this is a fundamental part of our business. We believe the Government failed to appreciate the extensive engagement that already takes place by providers and NAS has brought greater confusion to the employer market, cutting across the good work that providers already perform and adding a layer of bureaucracy.  We believe NAS’s role, if any, is in relation to the ‘general’ marketing of Apprenticeships.  It is not our belief that NAS should be dealing directly with the employers themselves.

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

Although the apprenticeship brand has gained more credibility over recent years, there is still much work to do; especially in Schools. We strongly support the need to continue to maximise the funding available to support Apprenticeships, enabling providers to offer inspirational learning and added value initiatives. Apprenticeships offer a high quality vocational route, designed by employers to meet business needs, whilst at the same time ensuring apprentices develop a range of more generic skills that will allow them to progress within the workplace.  

It is difficult to suggest changes to how the funds should be spent as Apprenticeships must remain a demand-led system, responsive to the real-time needs of employers in a fast changing economic environment.

Companies want incentives that impact on their bottom line and if the incentives can be passed down to help with this (i.e. help towards wage costs) it will obviously help. However, there is a very mixed message in terms of providers asking for employer contributions on the one hand, but the Government supplying grants on the other hand. All funding should be directed into the delivery of a quality brand as reductions in funding rates are unhelpful at a time when the government is trying to grow the number of young people starting Apprenticeships, creating a tension between increasing volumes and maintaining quality. Any funding model should be transparent and offer greater simplicity than the current model which is over engineered and excessively complex.

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

We believe that all levels of Apprenticeships should offer high quality training/learning which brings extensive benefits to both the employer and the apprentice.  Whilst we would encourage progression to Level 3 Apprenticeships wherever possible, it must be recognised that in many occupations and sectors a Level 2 Apprenticeship is the most appropriate level of qualification to start with, offering the right quality, skills, knowledge and benefits to the apprentices and their employers. Reduced funding can also significantly impact on progression as in some cases the reduced funding does not allow an organisation to carry out the quality learning journey necessary to achieve the higher level qualification.

There has been much publicity recently about a comparatively small number of apprentices that are completing their framework in surprisingly quick time – so called ‘short duration’ Apprenticeships.  These stories need to be properly verified with a thorough evidence based investigation to ascertain what is really going on in those very few cases or there is a real danger of ill-informed prejudice devaluing the excellent Apprenticeship brand and current flexibilities which enable Providers to design provision around individual needs will become inflexible and based on ‘time served’ not need.  Employment should remain a fundamental aspect of Apprenticeships; and should be available to all, regardless of age, to enable the brand to continue to improve its credibility.

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?

Although bonuses can help, historical evidence shows that this can encourage some employers to take someone on for the wrong reasons, and there is never a ‘long term plan’ involved in the decision. This, however, doesn’t mean the apprentice loses out as they do gain valuable skills and experience for future job opportunities should they not be kept on. It will be important to monitor their take up and evaluate their success before taking any decisions on whether other forms of incentive are needed to encourage greater take up by SMEs.

It might be shown that the money could be better spent on more effective marketing and funding for more Apprenticeships. Bonuses and incentives always lead to changes in behavior amongst employers and these changes are not always as one might wish for or anticipate and may not represent best value for money.

Any bonus should ensure an element is paid upon completion of a qualification and a permanent Job.

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

Apprenticeship funding must recognise the true costs of successfully delivering such a complex programme, often uniquely tailored to meet the needs of both the employer and of the apprentice and make available appropriate levels of funding based on those individual needs.  Age and experience will, of course, be factors that would need to be taken into account.  We do believe, however, that those learners who are 19-24 who do not have a Level 2 qualification or who had been unemployed at the start of the programme should have full funding and not reduced, as currently happens, by 50%.

It is clear that employers in many sectors are substantially subsidising training – and by many thousands of pounds in some of the more traditional sectors; a financial input that is not always recognised or acknowledged, in addition to all the ‘in-kind’ support provided as well by employers.

Employers who are committing to Apprenticeships as a way forward in terms of their recruitment strategies and progression within the company need to be consistent to all age groups. Offering learning opportunities based on age is not an option to any company with values.

2 February 2012