Apprenticeships

APP 47

Written evidence submitted by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers

 

Executive Summary

 

a) Deciding a clear, universal definition of what an Apprenticeship is must be the starting point of any review of Apprenticeships. AELP suggests:

An Apprenticeship is a competence based skill development programme, designed and endorsed by employers for their employees, which combines independently accredited work based learning, off the job training and relevant experience in the job. (Paragraphs 2 – 4)

b) The ‘Employer Ownership’ proposals must not be allowed to devalue the Apprenticeship brand by providing government funding for employers’ own apprenticeships that do not meet, or exceed, the current requirements of Apprenticeships in England. (Paragraph 4)

c) The National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) should be focused on marketing Apprenticeships at the national level and explaining Apprenticeships in schools to young people, their parents and teachers. They should only be dealing directly with those large national employers not already involved with Apprenticeships. (Paragraphs 5 – 8)

d) Funding systems must allow Apprenticeships to continue as a demand-led programme, responsive to the real-time needs of employers in a fast changing economic environment. (Paragraph 9 – 10)

e) The decision to make all 16-18 Apprenticeships last 12 months when funding is being cut by 2% will create a tension between increasing volumes and maintaining quality for this group of learners. (Paragraph 11)

f) All Apprenticeship frameworks offer high quality training. In many occupations and sectors a Level 2 Apprenticeship is the most appropriate. (Paragraph 12)

g) The vast majority of Apprenticeships offer high quality training. Concerns about a very few ‘short duration’ Apprenticeships should be investigated and appropriate action taken where a problem is identified. The system must continue to allow exceptional learners to progress more quickly than the norm and not hold them back unnecessarily. (Paragraphs 13 – 14)

h) Clear principles for ‘who pays’ for the various elements of an Apprenticeship framework are vital. Only then can proper funding levels be decided. The true costs of successfully delivering this complex programme must also be taken into account when setting rates. (Paragraphs 16 – 20)

Introduction

 

1. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) represents the interests of a range of organisations delivering state-funded vocational learning – our members deliver in excess of 70% of all Apprenticeships. The majority of our 600+ member organisations are independent providers (from both the private and the third sectors) holding contracts with the Skills Funding Agency, with many also delivering Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) provision. In addition to these we have a number of colleges in membership, as well as non-delivery organisations such as Sectors Skills Councils (SSCs) and awarding bodies as Associate Members, which means that AELP offers a well rounded and comprehensive perspective and insight on matters relating to its remit.

AELP’s view on the issues being considered by this inquiry

 

2. For a serious debate on the issues it is essential that everyone involved is talking about the same thing. We believe that at present too often different people and groups mean different things when they refer to an Apprenticeship, and that it is vital first to agree a common definition of what an Apprenticeship actually is before tackling the any of the other issues. In November 2011 AELP published its policy paper, ‘What are apprenticeships (for)?’ [1] (Appendix 1), which suggests the following definition of an Apprenticeship:

3. An Apprenticeship is a competence based skill development programme, designed and endorsed by employers for their employees, which combines independently accredited work based learning, off the job training and relevant experience in the job.

4. We believe that agreeing this definition – or something very similar – would be a good starting point in the debate – indeed an essential starting point. That being the case, we are concerned that, whilst in principle we support the objectives behind the "Employer Ownership of Skills" proposals, they would inevitably increase confusion as to what exactly an Apprenticeship is if they were to allow the introduction by employers of so-called ‘apprenticeships with a small a’ that are not subject to the same audit scrutiny, Ofsted inspection regimes, SASE compliance, etc, as other government funded Apprenticeships. Such a move would not only raise questions of accountability of public funds, but would bring a real risk that, unless they are clearly at very least meeting or better still going beyond all these existing requirements of a government funded Apprenticeship, they could seriously damage the Apprenticeship brand, which is currently widely recognised as the gold standard in work based learning.

National Apprenticeship Service

1. AELP believes that there is a role for the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) in the marketing of Apprenticeships at the national level. This has never been more important and there is much work that they can undertake in this area, including gathering and publicising the value Apprenticeships bring to employers.

2. NAS can play a particularly valuable role in schools, explaining to young people, their teachers and parents that Apprenticeships offer a high quality vocational training that will suit many young people better than the traditional academic route after the age of 16. This is particularly important at a time when careers guidance is being dismantled and there is a real fear amongst providers that schools will not be able to fulfil their duty to make pupils aware of all the options available, including Apprenticeships, except in a very superficial way. Provider concerns about the failings of the information, advice and guidance services now being provided are exacerbated by the failure of the funding system to factor in the additional costs now being borne by providers as a result of the cutbacks elsewhere.

3. Apart from the ‘general’ marketing of Apprenticeships to employers, however, we do not believe that NAS should be dealing directly with the employers themselves, as that role is already undertaken very effectively by training providers (who should be rewarded for this service, enabling them to reinvest in the process). The exception to this might be engaging with those large, mainly national, employers that are not already involved in the delivery of Apprenticeships, and are not easily accessed by providers, in order to persuade them of the benefits of recruiting Apprentices.

4. Finally, defining the framework and standards of Apprenticeships is a role for employers and the awarding Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) rather than NAS, as they know what is required in their industries.

Extra funding for Apprenticeships

1. AELP strongly supports the need to continue to maximise the funding available to support and encourage the sustainable demand for Apprenticeships. They offer a high quality vocational route, on programmes 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. Improved funding and significantly higher profile marketing undoubtedly bring benefits to the UK economy; Apprenticeships are highly successful programmes and we should build upon them.

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

3. We are concerned, however, that funding rates for Apprenticeships have reduced substantially over the last few years and we believe that additional financial support is required for the delivery of Functional Skills at levels 1 and 2 to meet the challenge set by the Government to improve English and maths. On top of this, the Government has announced that Apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds must last a full 12 months just as the funding rates for this age group have been cut by 2%. There is universal agreement that young people should be receiving quality training on an Apprenticeship and that quality provision comes at a cost.  At a time when the government is trying to grow the number of young people starting Apprenticeships, this rate cut will surely create a tension between increasing volumes and maintaining quality, especially if any action taken by providers to improve their efficiency is likely to be seen as reducing the quality of their Apprenticeships.

Quality of Apprenticeships

1. We believe that all levels of Apprenticeships offer high quality training 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, offering the right quality, skills, knowledge and benefits to the Apprentices and their employers.

2. 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 of course need to be properly checked out and AELP fully supports the need for 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.

3. What is needed are employer designed frameworks that indicate a reasonable sector ‘norm’ but at the same time give the capacity for employers, providers and funders to understand and explain why that norm does not on occasion need to be rigorously applied. Only where an appropriate explanation is not forthcoming action should (rightly) be taken. It should be fully accepted that Apprentices – especially older ones – will often bring a range of experience and competences with them which will enable the balance of the full framework to be completed within a reduced timeframe. As within the academic route of GCSEs, A levels and degrees there will always be exceptional learners who for various reasons are able to develop and succeed exceptionally quickly and such early completions should not only be permitted, but the completer’s achievements celebrated.

Apprenticeship bonuses

1. As these have only just been introduced it is really too early to comment on how they should function and whether they encourage greater sustainable involvement of more small and medium sized businesses. 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 behaviour amongst employers and these changes are not always as one might wish for or anticipate and may not represent best value for money.

Current funding arrangements for training of Apprentices

2. In March 2011 AELP produced two linked policy documents, ‘Co-funding – the underpinning principles for government funded training’ (Appendix 2) and ‘Co-funding – how the agreed principles should be applied in practice to Apprenticeships’ (Appendix 3). Again, we recommend that these two documents be considered by the Select Committee during the current inquiry [1] .

3. The first document aims to set out the principles for deciding who should bear the cost of training, arguing that decisions on ‘who pays’ need to be based on a clear, transparent assessment of who benefits from the various elements of any training programme.

4. The second document focuses specifically on how the principles set out in the first document might be applied to Apprenticeships in practice. It points out that not only does each Apprenticeship framework consist of a number of mandatory requirements – usually competence based qualifications/units, basic skills (key or functional skills), technical certificates and personal learning skills – but also a range of additional elements that incur costs during the programme. These include mandatory fees (from Awarding Organisations, etc), the ‘Apprenticeship element’ (in recognition that delivery of an Apprenticeship programme adds up to far more than the sum of its parts – this is explained more fully in the paper) and, of course, miscellaneous administration costs.

5. In practice, therefore, 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%.

6. One final thing that we must point out is that, in reality, current funding may not be 100% for 16-18 year olds and 50% for 19-24 year olds. If the true costs of delivering many frameworks is evaluated it is clear that employers in many sectors are substantially subsidising the 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 all employers.

Summary

1. Whilst it is quite right and proper to hold a serious review of Apprenticeships, we all ought to recognise that the vast majority of Apprenticeships are delivered appropriately, to a high quality standard, with continually rising completion rates and Ofsted grades. There may be some areas needing attention, but these are relatively few and we must not allow them to be taken out of context and blown up out of all proportion by either the media or academia. With success rates at 76.4% our Apprenticeships are something we should be proud of and celebrate.

3 February 2012

APPENDIX 1

What are apprenticeships (for)?   

 

Summary   

This paper describes and celebrates the recent history of the apprenticeship brand, which no longer simply embraces first jobs for 16 year olds, but has developed to allow tens of thousands of young people to be converted from dead end ‘jobs without training’, and upskill adult employees to enable them to progress to higher skilled jobs/higher education, often tackling low levels of literacy and numeracy on route.

These all contribute hugely to the government’s skill and growth strategies. The inbuilt flexibility has developed almost individually unique programmes of variable duration, taking into account individuals’ previous qualifications, skills and experience. All apprentices finish up with higher levels of usable skill, to be put immediately to use for the benefit of themselves, their employer and the economy as a whole.

None of these economically value adding attributes should be threatened or lost. The apprenticeship brand successfully embraces all these variables, but must not be damagingly stretched by making it a programme for the non-employed/NEETs. These need flexible preparatory programmes to enable them to enter employed apprenticeships when both ready and employable.

· AELP members deliver 70% plus of apprenticeships.

· The apprenticeship brand successfully embraces the upskilling of many different age and ability groups.

· Apprenticeships are employer designed and funded, independently assessed programmes for employees.

· Apprenticeships include circa 60,000 variations! (Across 230 frameworks, 3 levels, 3 age bands, differing entry levels and variable durations.)

· The aim is to ensure all apprentices reach an agreed, employer designed, fit for work outcome, irrespective of the individual’s previous age, experience or qualification.

· Apprenticeships are as important for upskilling the adult workforce as they are for training up school leavers.

· They currently do not result in dangerous ‘brand stretch’.

· Damaging brand stretch would occur if they embraced programmes for the unemployed/NEETs.

· Such ‘preparatory’ training should precede entry into an apprenticeship.

What are apprenticeships (for)? 

 

Introduction   

This paper attempts to describe the various situations that can be found within the apprenticeship programme. These range from brand new jobs for 16 year olds with programmes typically lasting up to three years plus to adults (over 25) who need some additional training to complete a full employer designed framework. The individuals on apprenticeships range from those who have achieved A levels to those with continuing basic literacy and numeracy problems. The common factor is that the final achievement, from a wide range of start points, is the accredited completion of a full competence based, employer designed framework.

While putting to bed some myths and misconceptions about the programme since it was relaunched in 1994, the paper also reconfirms that the aim of an apprenticeship is to develop and confirm skills fit for the workplace, together with an appropriate level of related experience at that workplace. The paper argues that all of the situations described have real value for the individual, the employer and the economy and represent appropriate success within the apprenticeship brand. Arguing for a limited number, or indeed single, outcome would severely limit the successful role apprenticeships currently play in upskilling employees of all ages – an objective broadly recognised as critically important for the future wellbeing and prosperity of the country.

There is currently a serious debate under way about the nature, purpose and benefits of apprenticeships, including how best to fund them. As AELP members deliver, it is estimated, in excess of 70% of all apprenticeships this paper seeks to outline a picture of what apprenticeships are (for) from the sharp end. Our members work with committed employers on a daily basis, so they are better placed than most to know what really matters.

What is clear is that the apprenticeship brand incorporates a wide variety of elements that operate alongside each other using this common brand name. What is also clear is that many individuals/organisations define apprenticeships in a very narrow way, usually related to perhaps just one of these elements linked to their (narrow) experience or their individual perspective. To fully answer the question posed by this paper – "What are apprenticeships (for)?" – it is necessary to view all the separate elements before coming to a final conclusion/answer. For apprenticeships to continue growing and developing with the full support of employers, government and individuals it will be important to agree on a common, comprehensive definition which can encompass, in a sophisticated way, the totality of the different elements.

AELP suggests the following:

An apprenticeship is a competence based skill development programme, designed and endorsed by employers for their employees, which combines independently accredited work based learning, off the job training and relevant experience in the job.

This overarching definition accommodates a wide range of separate aspects/ approaches variously considered to be ‘priority’ elements by different interests and this paper now goes on to describe these various aspects.

What then does an apprentice look like?   

Apprentices are defined by a series of variables which can almost make every apprentice unique; a fact which concerns some people who would prefer to have a simple, clear picture easily understood and recognised by all. That is not, nor should be, the case. Every apprentice however should be covered by the broad description at the core of this document. This part of this paper outlines the main variables in common use which when combined produce potentially 55,890 descriptors.

The variables   

Sector/occupation (230).

Programme level (3).

Age band (3).

Previous experience/qualifications (3).

Programme duration (3+).

Previous employment status (3).

Sector/occupation (230)

The most obvious and important variable relates to the particular occupation/sector that apprenticeship is designed for. The apprenticeship is designed by employers and currently approved by their Sector Skills Council and is focused on a programme which is fit for purpose, ie related to the operating requirements of that job within that sector (eg bricklayer, shop assistant, care worker, chef, accounting technician).

The key objective must be to prepare the apprentice for the needs of the specific sector occupation, not to embark on a course of academic/theoretical training which has some unrelated comparison to apprenticeships in entirely different sectors. The core criterion is to prepare someone to meet the requirements of a real job not to attempt to artificially achieve some theoretical qualification based equality with other totally unrelated jobs. That said, achieving the required levels of literacy, numeracy and the requirements of the underpinning knowledge technical certificate will afford some careful and helpful comparisons. The critical skills competences however are not designed in themselves to be comparators.

Programme level (3)

There are now effectively three levels of apprenticeship. When introduced in 1994 Modern Apprenticeships were solely at level 3. Because of the accepted need to design frameworks that develop employees for the requirements of frontline delivery – especially in the ‘new’ service sectors (hospitality, retail, care, etc) – level 2 frameworks were soon introduced. There are currently 105 level 2 frameworks, with 117 at level 3. Most recently the coalition government has decided to support higher level frameworks (level 4 and 5) and 8 have already been approved. It is anticipated that the number of higher level frameworks will rise substantially over the next few years, strengthening further the progression route into higher education.

Age band (3)

The three age bands applied to government apprenticeship funding rates (16-18, 19-24, 25+) represent proxies for the volume of training that normally needs to be carried out and the contribution government is prepared to make to the total cost of a full framework.

Government contributions (available for 16-18 year olds) are reduced by 50% for apprentices over the age of 19, representing a perceived average of the experience/ competences older apprentices bring with them. For some time now there has been an unhelpful misunderstanding that the reduction in government funding at 19 was based on the need for employers to contribute more. Having been present at the meeting where the decision was made, AELP chief executive Graham Hoyle knows that was not the basis on which the 50% level was introduced in 2001; the decision was based on a government decision on ‘affordability’ and the assumed reduced level of training required by older, more experienced employees to enable them to fully complete their apprenticeship. It also recognised the employer’s contribution towards apprenticeship costs which include income support (wages) and much on the job training, with training providers supplying the assessors and trainers with the direct industry experience that are essential for effective delivery of the full apprenticeship framework requirements.

The focus on 25+ is a comparatively recent development which was designed to encourage employers to upskill part-trained adult workers in response to the Leitch recommendations for a national upskilling strategy. This last approach was accelerated by the new coalition government of 2010 who immediately closed the Train to Gain programme, instead adopting the policy strongly articulated in the Conservative policy papers of 2009 [1] which stated, "We will offer a major boost to the provision of real apprenticeships by injecting £775 million of government funds to support real apprentices of all ages".

It is wrongly assumed that the recent dramatic increase in 25+ apprenticeship starts and completions represents only some marginal upskilling of well experienced adults firmly established in the workforce. Official figures indicate that 60% of the 25+ growth has been of adults reaching their first ever level 2 – a necessary springboard for the kind of further progression that everyone recognises is vital to our national economic wellbeing. These older apprentices also represent a substantial number that have for the first time achieved the required literacy and numeracy levels, positively impacting on the successive governments’ priority to tackle this issue.

Previous experience/qualifications (3)

Whilst, as explained in the previous section, the age groupings are used as a rough proxy for the level of knowledge/competence/experience already achieved by the learner it must be recognised that there are many exceptions in both directions within each age grouping. Whilst government funding assumes that 16-18 year olds will require all, or at least the vast majority, of the framework requirements to be accessed during the apprenticeship programme there are of course exceptions to this. These include the levels of literacy and numeracy achieved or not whilst in statutory education and indeed the range of competences and experiences – often significant – during part time employment, or for those aged 17/18 during previous full time employment. Nevertheless the government’s funding contribution continues to be based substantially on meeting the total potential requirement for this group.

As we move through the 19-24, and especially into the 25+ apprenticeship arena, the level of previous experience/achievement understandably tends to grow, where sometimes ‘topping up’ is required to enable the employee to achieve full apprenticeship completion. There still remain a substantial number of low skilled adults who continue to operate at well below their potential. For these the achievement of the apprenticeship framework represents a considerable milestone, often starting with major literacy/numeracy deficits. The government is still prepared to fully fund this basic preparatory training.

Programme duration (3+)

To keep the picture as simple as possible this section suggests that apprenticeship frameworks can be split into three groups to describe their actual duration. These are up to one year, between one and two years and over two years. In reality, of course, there is a much greater range of variables as each framework can potentially be of a different duration.

Increasingly employers, through their employer bodies (SSCs) are suggesting a time for completion of a full framework by a young person starting at 16 from scratch. Whilst it is helpful and will enable employers to anticipate how long it might take to achieve the levels of competence and experience required of apprentices, the previous two sections of this paper make clear that age, and more importantly previously attained skills and experience, will allow many (especially older) apprentices to reach full framework completion in shorter, often far shorter, periods of time. Such situations do not represent a weak framework or a poor quality apprenticeship; they merely confirm that the apprentices from highly variable start points have now achieved an accredited skill level which not only fits them for the particular job in hand, it confirms a jumping off point for further progression to levels 3, 4 and indeed beyond. The suggested time for the full completion of a framework can only be related to the time needed for most to complete starting from scratch. It must be right to enable individuals and their employers, with an often unique set of previous experiences and abilities, to reach the completion stage as quickly as possible. Such events should be celebrated in the same way as we regularly celebrate early GCSE, A level and higher education achievers. As a society we do not treat young A level achievers as poor quality, nor do we minimise the achievement of those reaching such independently accredited levels post retirement. The accusation that early completion of common and properly accredited levels of achievement must inevitably be due to a poor quality programme must be robustly resisted, especially when the accusation comes from traditional (academic) educationalists naturally sceptical about the value of competence based vocational achievements.

Previous employment status (3)

There is apparently a misconception by some that apprenticeships solely represent job creation – a newly created job (primarily available for school leavers). This for a very long time has not normally been the case. The driving argument for the last decade or so underpinning the growth in apprenticeships has been the broadly supported desire to upskill those in work whilst of course giving young people the opportunity to move from full time education to start an apprenticeship, representing a job creation opportunity for an unemployed young person. However for many years most apprentices – all those 25+, the vast majority of 19-24 and indeed the significant majority of 16-18 year olds have been rescued from low skill employment, ‘jobs without training’, and converted into apprentices following a fully authorised and accredited apprenticeship framework.

Pre-apprenticeship experience therefore can be described in three ways:

1. Previously unemployed.

2. Employed with a different employer.

3. Employed by the same employer (a genuine conversion).

All three situations are totally acceptable and there should not be any concern about any of these starting points as the objective of an apprenticeship must be to get the apprentice to the end point of achieving a full framework, irrespective of where they start.

The focus must firmly stay on the outcome. Current government policy towards apprenticeships is on the right tack and it should not be blown off course by misconceptions on what the programme is about.

One last issue – ‘brand stretch’   

There is increasing unease that the apprenticeship brand is being damagingly stretched, with the danger of diminishing the respect and credibility in which the brand is widely held, but as this paper points out this is not currently a problem.

In reality very few people have a comprehensive understanding of the breadth of the current apprenticeship brand as described in this paper and AELP argues that all the elements described can be legitimately accommodated within the apprenticeship brand.

A real danger, however, is that apprenticeships could be wrongly positioned (stretched) to accommodate support programmes for the unemployed. However well intentioned, some political statements loosely, but inappropriately, have proposed apprenticeships as a potential remedy following the recent riots. They are also increasingly cited as a major answer to the ‘NEET problem’. Others complain that apprenticeships do not properly deal with (young) people with a variety of disability or other disadvantage. For most of these situations apprenticeships are indeed not the immediate solution as many potential apprentices are still too far away from meeting the often demanding selection criteria quite properly laid down by the employers who will be employing them. Many, especially young people, who have the potential to become apprentices need considerable ‘preparatory’ training before being suitable, and indeed capable of progressing onto a full apprenticeship as outlined in the earlier definition.

The scope for appropriate preparatory training is still too limited and simply suggesting that apprenticeships are the immediate answer risks stretching the brand too far, probably by putting the employed condition under threat. This would indeed cause a damaging brand stretch that could fatally wound it. This must not be allowed to happen.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers

November 2011

Annex 1

History   

Apprenticeships have always developed in response to the changing economic face of the country. With a history traced back to the 16th century and beyond, apprenticeships could never have survived without such responsive developments.

As recently as the immediate post-war period of the 1950s/1960s, apprenticeships still reflected an economy substantially based on manufacturing, engineering and construction; all sectors that employed a male dominated workforce in a society where huge proportions of working age women were not active in the labour market.

The short term failure of the apprenticeship model to respond to the substantial growth of the service sector and the equally dramatic increase in the female participation rate resulted (alongside a questionable understanding of the need to invest in training on the part of employers) in the near disappearance of apprenticeships.

This near demise was halted by the Conservative government’s adoption and promotion (and part-funding) of Modern Apprenticeships in 1994 in response to a submission from the Training and Enterprise Council movement.

The immediate results were the expansion of apprenticeship frameworks into the service sector, the opening of apprenticeships to both sexes, the removal of the ‘time serving’ expectation and the recognition of variable normal apprenticeship periods reflecting the differing workforce skill needs of the wider range of sectors now involved. The revolution also extended the range of ages at which apprentices could start their training period. One thing that did not change, however, was the responsibility for apprenticeship framework design which was left squarely with employers – at that stage via the national training organisation network.

This 1994 revolution saw significant government contributions to delivery costs for the first time, with the government as part funder understandably exercising some control over aspects of design and delivery. A major unintentional mistake at this stage was to allow the inaccurate myth to develop, that apprenticeships were a government funded programme to which employers made a (modest) contribution; a complete reversal of reality.

The next major development which impacted on apprenticeships was a strengthened political determination on the part of the 1997 Labour government which led to a quadrupling of apprenticeships during their thirteen year term of office. This substantial growth was in turn supported by two other significant developments.

Firstly, a government inspired determination to reduce/eradicate ‘jobs without training’ led to many employers being persuaded to ‘convert’ many of their young employees (aged 16 – 24) from so-called ‘dead end jobs’ with little or no formal training/qualifications onto a comprehensive apprenticeship framework. The second development came following the Leitch review, which stressed the vital need for the country to significantly upskill its workforce, with a particular focus on unacceptably low levels of skill and qualification throughout the adult workforce. Complementary to this picture was the already accepted policy to tackle the totally unacceptable low levels of numeracy and literacy throughout the adult working population.

The Labour government responded to these linked needs by funding adult literacy/ numeracy developments for those at work, launching a Train to Gain programme targeting individual skill requirements and tentatively exploring the scope to move adults (25+) onto a full apprenticeship framework. This last approach was accelerated by the new coalition government of 2010 who immediately closed the Train to Gain programme, instead preferring an all age apprenticeship programme.

It can be seen therefore that as apprenticeships have developed rapidly in the face of ever changing economic reality the range of apprenticeships and apprentices is massively greater than ever before in our history. What has however remained at the core of apprenticeships as shown in the definition used in this paper is that apprentices are always employed. The purpose is to develop the ever higher skills that are needed, on a sector by sector basis. Finally, those skills together with appropriate experience are properly accredited through the awarding of competence based qualifications.

APPENDIX 2

Co-funding – the underpinning principles for government funded training

 

1. The funding approach

ALP recognises a need to shift expectations and practice about who pays for what and understand the need for a greater recognition of the benefits to both the individual and the employer of any investment in training. Independent work based learning (WBL) providers have long pointed out that when providers offer training to employers at highly subsidised rates, or even free, those employers do not value as they should the training they are undertaking. This has led to a situation where learners and employers currently do not expect to pay a realistic contribution towards the cost of their learning. ALP has long accepted the need to develop a three-way co-funding model [1] - this need is now even more vital than ever given the current financial difficulties.

We believe, however, that the first task in establishing the principles for co-funding must be to look carefully at the various elements contained within each training programme and identify who properly ought to be paying for each element, ie who benefits from that particular part of the training (rather than simply identifying a percentage of the cost of the overall programme that would be paid by the employer/individual). A starting point would be to identify which parts of the programme are there because of the economic and social benefits they bring – these are the ones for which the government should be prepared to pick up the cost. Only once that has been clarified it will be possible to establish how much benefit the employer and the individual derived from the training and an assessment made of what a fair contribution towards the cost from each would be.

2. The elements of a training programme

Each training programme will incur costs for one or more of the following elements:

· Competence based qualifications/units

· Basic skills (key/functional skills)

· Technical certificates

· Mandatory fees (Awarding Organisations, etc)

· The ‘Apprenticeship element’ (in Apprenticeship programmes)

· Miscellaneous administration

Every one of these elements is necessary for the programme to be considered an Apprenticeship [1] .

3. The costs of the various elements of a training programme

Having decided the elements that comprise each training programme the actual cost of the individual elements will need to be identified. It will then be possible to draw up a matrix clearly identifying who is responsible for funding which elements.

Element	Who pays
Competence based qualifications/ units	Employer and/or individual
Basic skills (key/functional skills)	Government
Technical certificates	Government and/or employers/individuals
Mandatory fees (Awarding Organisations, etc)	Employers/individuals primarily
Apprenticeship element	Government
Miscellaneous administration	Government/employer

In the case of 16-18 year old learners it would be expected that the Government would pay for all the elements as part of the ‘guarantee’ offered to that age group. Ideally, however, a new system for co-funding would do away with age-related break points.

What must not be overlooked having established ‘who pays’ and setting co-funding levels are the considerable ‘in kind’ contributions being made by employers throughout the training period. This has consistently been under-estimated not only by Government funders, but often even by providers themselves. Another factor that also needs to be taken into acount is that with an Apprenticeship the employer also provides significant ‘income support’ for the learner (their employee) in the form of a wage, in addition to these ‘in kind’ contributions.

Although these principles can clearly and easily be applied to an Apprenticeship programme there is no reason why they could not be applied to government funded training being undertaken by any individual whether in employment or not.

4. Summary

Providers must be able rely on realistic levels of funding to cover the costs they incur in delivering government funded programmes. There is considerable scope, however, for some of these costs to be passed on to either the employer or the learner themselves. Determining who ultimately bears the cost of training must, however, be based on a clear, transparent assessment of who benefits from each element of every government funded training programme and then setting fee levels (co-funding rates) based to those assessments.

Judy Brandon

National Policy Manager

Association of Learning Providers

March 2011

APPENDIX 3

Co-funding – how the agreed principles should be applied in practice to Apprenticeships

 

2. Introduction

The basic principles on which co-funding should be based have been set out in ALP’s policy paper, ‘Co-funding – the underpinning principles for government funded training’ [1] . This paper seeks to set out how these principles should be applied in practice, starting with the implications for Apprenticeships

2. Apprenticeships

Although in most cases it is relatively simple to break the training down into the various elements and establish an appropriate cost for each, this is not possible in the case of Apprenticeships. Here there is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration – completion of an Apprenticeship framework brings greater benefit to the learner than simply achieving the individual qualifications within the framework would have done. In other words, for an Apprenticeship the whole adds up to far more than the sum of its parts – a fact that has been recognised by the funders in the past. When the LSC developed a system of funding for Apprenticeship frameworks it was based on the cost of delivery for the average 16-18 learner within each framework. This created an overall funding envelope within which the provider had to deliver all of the required qualifications, ie NVQ, technical certificate and key skills. In order to pay the providers that amount of money the LSC chose to ‘price’ each individual element and then pay the remainder of the funding within the NVQ payment. In many instances this payment was greater than the funding for an NVQ and this difference became known as the ‘Apprenticeship element’.

Apprenticeship frameworks

Within the Apprenticeship framework there are a number of mandatory requirements and these vary between sectors, however every framework requires the learner to have achieved:

· Competence based qualifications/units

· Basic skills (key/functional skills)

· Technical certificates

· Personal learning skills

In the new standards all of these elements are mandatory and additional requirements are set out over and above any specific requirements for the individual qualifications set by the awarding bodies.

There are also additional elements incurring cost during an Apprenticeship training programme:

· Mandatory fees (Awarding Organisations, etc)

· The ‘Apprenticeship element’ (mentioned earlier)

· Miscellaneous administration

Integration of qualifications

The requirement to deliver a range of qualifications within a single framework means that learners are expected to manage different curriculum and learning methodologies at the same time. Providers are rarely able to deliver nice neat packages of learning with say the key skills first, followed by the technical certificate and finally the NVQ. NVQs in particular take some time to deliver so most of the qualifications have to be completed in an integrated way. This does result in more support for the learner. Very often this is the first time the learners have experienced any competence-based assessment and they are also very often learners that have not been successful at academic studies and exams.

Qualification delivery

Each of the different qualifications in the framework can have a different delivery mode (one to one, classroom based, distance learning) and they probably have a different assessment methodology, which may involve formative assessment, project based assessment, written exams, multiple choice and summative assessment. These different teaching methodologies together with the different assessment processes makes this a more complex mix than if each were delivered separately.

Integration of learning and work

All Apprentices are employed therefore the learning, which is already complex, has to be integrated into the day-to-day demands of a job. The learning curriculum has to be linked to the work that the Apprentice is involved in and in particular the NVQ elements of the learning require the Apprentice to be experiencing a range of activities that cover the qualification. This requires constant adjustment to the learning programme in conjunction with the learner and employer. The important role that the employer plays is vital to the successful delivery of the Apprenticeship and this three-way relationship, ie provider, learner and employer, makes this a more complex relationship than classroom delivery.

In areas requiring a lot of equipment use such as engineering this integration of learning and work becomes even more difficult to manage. It is difficult enough to manage access to equipment in college based workshops but access to specific machinery in the workplace to effect the learning can be very difficult and may add time to the process.

Introduction into work

For many young Apprentices this is their first job. This means the provider has to deliver the learning whilst also supporting this introduction into work, with all of the new disciplines of start and finish times, long hours and strict disciplines. This often affects the young people who find this change very difficult and it will also affect the learning. Ongoing work related issues such as performance, changing shifts and changing locations also affect the programme and providers often have to adapt the programme to suit these changes. Changes do occur in other modes of delivery but not as frequently as in the world of work. This issue is compounded by the fact that a learner may be doing several qualifications at the time of change whereas doing a single NVQ might be easy to adapt.

Success rates and timing

As the Apprentice programme has to be delivered as an integrated package this puts more pressure on success rates and therefore funding. It is much more difficult to drive success rates when all learners have to pass all elements of the programme. In other circumstances if someone has a particular weakness you may replace certain elements of a learning programme. Within Apprenticeships this is not possible. There are many examples of very competent young people, where their employer is very happy with their work, passing the NVQ and technical certificate not getting through the key skills. These young people are deemed failures in the Apprenticeship environment and the provider loses the funding that they needed to give the learner the additional support.

Similarly to achieve timely completions it is much more difficult to predict and manage a range of qualifications to a point where they are all finished to plan as opposed to delivering the qualifications one at a time.

Judy Brandon

National Policy Manager

March 2011