Session 2010-12
Apprenticeships
APP 46
Written evidence submitted by 157 Group
The 157 Group is pleased to respond to the invitation to provide evidence to the select committee inquiry into apprenticeships. We set out below our responses to the specific questions asked by the committee but would make some more general points first.
1) The increased priority being given to apprenticeships at the current time is welcome and colleges in the 157 group are playing a key role in sponsoring and supporting the growth of provision. At the same time however we would caution against having unrealistic expectations as to what the apprenticeship programme can deliver, and warn that an excessive focus on apprenticeships risks neglecting other aspects of vocational education. We see apprenticeships as a very valuable programme for progressing young people into skilled employment. They are however not likely to be appropriate(or even available ) to all young people who are not following the A level route, many of whom will be better served by pre-apprenticeship programmes in a college. They are not the answer to the pressing issue of youth unemployment as they do not in themselves create jobs. They are also not necessarily the most appropriate mechanism for up-skilling adults in the workforce.
2) Although there are many high quality apprenticeships delivered by well established training providers there are also areas where clear improvements are needed.
o Growth in the number of 16-18 Apprenticeships is particularly welcomed, especially in the current climate. We would emphasise that provision for this age group however cannot effectively be delivered in fewer than 12 months and if apprenticeships are to contribute to the participation targets under the RPA they will need to be of a longer duration.
o We would like to see a stronger focus on the 19-24 year olds who are struggling to find employment or training opportunities. In particular there needs to be an emphasis on longer programmes and achievement at level 3. Consideration should be given to restricting apprenticeships to under 25s so that providers prioritise this age group.
o We need to see more evidence of recruiting apprentices to ‘real jobs’; our colleges have evidence of some employers using Apprentices for seasonal work for example. Quality issues have been raised particularly around fast-tracking and there are examples of those whose Apprenticeship is with a newly formed company with no prospect of being employed when they complete..
o There is a need to focus greater emphasis on SMEs and not just on large employers in attracting engagement with Apprenticeships and we need to see better marketing campaigns to boost profile.
o There need to be more options for Higher Apprenticeships and clearer pathways into HE for those who have been successful at level 3..
3) There may be grounds for reform of the funding arrangements for apprenticeships but this needs to be approached with caution. There is evidence that too great a reliance on financial incentives is one cause of some of the poor practice that currently exists as some providers seek to maximise their income rather than the quality of learning. There is also evidence of substantial deadweight, as indeed there has been in other employer focussed programmes such as Train to Gain We would suggest that
o .If there are to be extra payments to employers in this current difficult economic climate it should be made through a rebate on tax or National Insurance rather than a cash payment.
o There needs to be more clarity on what does and does not count as a 50% contribution/charge for 19 to 24 year old Apprenticeships as this is being interpreted differently by different providers.
o I f loans are to be the only means of public support for level 3 apprenticeships for over 25s the loan should be to the employer, not the individual
We have responded to your specific questions below.
|
1. |
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) |
|
The notion of the National Apprenticeship Service seemed to be a good one and initially they were very proactive, helping to increase Apprenticeship numbers and profile, but in reality it has not delivered all that was previously promised. Providers expected more business generation but this has not been forthcoming and NAS has served predominantly as an administration tool. The general consensus is that the gap between the funding agencies has not lessened because of NAS. There does seem to be a further layer of bureaucracy regarding the vacancy matching service. Now that NAS funding has been reduced we do not feel that they are as proactive - focusing on larger employers and with very little advertising to keep Apprenticeships in the media. Overall we are not convinced that they have bridged the gap between BIS and the DfE The NAS website appears out of date, their learner services which did have some value have now been abandoned and our colleges often find that their employer services cause more confusion with the employers than they provide benefits and cost time in terms of resolving problems created by their intervention. |
|
|
2. |
Is the extra funding promised by the Coalition Government necessary for apprenticeships? How can this funding best be spent? |
|
Extra funding is definitely necessary if the provision of apprenticeships is to grow but how it is spent needs further consideration. Incentives to encourage employers to take on apprentices may have a part to play but care needs to be taken to ensure employers do not use and abuse the opportunity. We do not want to go back to the days where employers only retained Apprentices while they were receiving training allowances. Money would be well spent increasing the opportunities for colleges to deliver pre-apprenticeship programmes that help to ensure that young people are ready for employment when the opportunity arises. In the short term increasing the numbers staying on in such programmes directly reduces the level of youth unemployment. Moves to increase the ‘employer ownership of skills’ are important. It is likely that employers will place greater value on those programmes that they pay for and help shape. To that end we see a need for further marketing activities predominantly aimed at employers to ensure that they see the worth of Apprenticeships from a quality point of view. |
|
|
3 |
Are apprenticeships of a high enough quality to benefit apprentices and their employers? Should there be more Level 3 apprenticeships? |
|
If delivered correctly Apprenticeships are of very good quality. The introduction of SASE is welcomed and will help ensure that all providers are delivering qualifications within the framework that add value. The fact that a majority of apprenticeships, even for the 16-19 age group have been delivered in under 12 months has damaged the apprenticeship brand and it is good that action is at last being taken to rectify the position. However there needs to be more focus on level 3 particularly for those in the 19-24 age group. The rapid expansion of level 2 apprenticeships for over 25s has distracted some providers from the harder task of growing level 3 provision. . Appropriate auditing needs to take place to ensure that SASE specifications are adhered to. There are no guidelines currently as to who will carry that role out, and this could once again jeopardise the Apprenticeship reputation. |
|
|
4. |
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? |
|
We are not convinced that bonuses are the most effective means of improving the apprenticeship programme. Some small and medium enterprises may be encouraged to employ an Apprentice if they receive a bonus/grant. Early indications suggest that a large part of the grant will be paid to employers after the Apprentices finish their qualifications and we support this as it emphasises sustainable employment. This may deter some, as they may not be able to commit to employing a young person on a long term basis. Business benefits however rather than bonuses should be the main reason for small businesses to invest in a young person. The most important aspect in encouraging businesses to take on Apprentices is to demonstrate the impact in terms of provision of skills for the business and enabling the business to thrive If there is to be payment of any form of bonus in this current difficult economic climate it should be made through a rebate on tax or National Insurance rather than a cash payment. This would need to be heavily promoted, but the actual cost of implementation would be less. .
|
|
|
5. |
Is the current funding arrangement for training of apprentices of 100% for 16-18 year olds and 50% for 19-24 year olds appropriate? |
|
A charge of 50% to an employer for a 19-24 year old apprentice is consistent with arrangements for the co-funding of other programmes. There needs however to be more consistency in terms of collecting the 50% contribution/charge as this is being interpreted differently by every provider. Our member colleges constantly complain that their attempts to collect employer contributions are undermined by other providers.The 157 Group is supportive of the employer ownership agenda believing that employers value most that provision for which they have to pay and which they can help shape. Public funding should be used, in line with the Wolf Report, to support those activities that are relevant to the wider development of the young person rather than the specific business of the employer. Opportunities for further development in English and mathematics, and to acquire underpinning knowledge and understanding through technical certificates should be supported from the public purse up to the age of 24 The current proposals are that individuals over the age of 24 wishing to undertake an apprenticeship at level 3 or above should take out a loan. We feel that this is likely to have a negative impact on the numbers coming forward and if loans are to be implemented the loan should be made to the employer. . |
2 February 2012