Apprenticeships

APP 112

Written evidence submitted by Asset Skills

1. Asset Skills is the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for property, housing, facilities management, cleaning and support services and parking. It is the Issuing Authority (IA) for all Apprenticeship Frameworks (AFs) relating to these sectors. We respond to the specific issues raised by the Terms of Reference below but also wish to make the following overall comments which we believe the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) must address as a matter of urgency:

· The Specification of Standards for Apprenticeships in England (SASE) and Wales (SASW) do not accommodate the specific requirements and contexts of different sectors. They impose a standard model which results in employers finding the model constraining which remains a powerful disincentive to their engagement. If apprenticeships are to become the flagship and mainstream vehicle for skills development then SASE and SASW must become more responsive frameworks and allow for sectoral differences.

· Employers have to engage with different SSCs for the many diverse work roles within their organisations resulting in an over-bureaucratic and cumbersome system. This is particularly important for companies which span a wide range of services such as the facilities management industry. Our large employers such as MITIE and OCS are particularly concerned about the burden this imposes upon them and have positive suggestions as to how the operation of apprenticeships can be centralised and streamlined. They would welcome the opportunity to work with BIS and NAS to develop a blueprint for a national system of delivery across all industries.

Terms of Reference Responses

2. 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 the NAS has not taken a strategic lead in working with Issuing Authorities, employers and providers to develop a practical and responsive interpretation of SASE and SASW. There are no clear lines of communication between the stakeholders in the system and NAS have not been responsive to requests and suggestions. Clarity as to governance and engagement arrangements within NAS is urgently needed.

In particular the difference between compliance to SASE and SASW and additional quality issues raised by NAS has caused confusion and concern among Issuing Authorities. SSCs have pressed for a full dialogue with NAS to arrive at a clear statement of what constitutes "quality" in a compliant Apprenticeship Framework but have had no response to date. Supplementary challenges to compliant AFs on the part of NAS often appear to be arbitrary and at the whim of individuals rather as part of an agreed set of criteria. NAS has refused to support the funding of compliant AFs based on challenges as to quality which have not been helpful to good working relationships with all the parties involved in apprenticeship delivery.

We believe NAS should be an independent entity dedicated to the creation and promotion of a national apprenticeship network rather than sitting within BIS with control over funding decision. It should form properly constituted governance arrangements which provide clear channels of engagement and dialogue with IAs, employers and deliverers.

There is a need for greater coordination of employer engagement on apprenticeships as currently employers are being approached by numerous organisations, sometimes with different messages.  In our view promotion of apprenticeships should be through a partnership between NAS and the SSCs to ensure consistency of message.  Partnerships of this nature currently exist but need to be strengthened and communications improved to ensure effective countrywide coverage

The cost of delivery of an apprenticeship can vary considerably from provider to provider.  Whilst this may bring benefits to some employers it significantly disadvantages others and we question whether this inconsistency of pricing is appropriate for a learning programme of this importance.

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

Extra funding is crucial to the success of apprenticeships and the securing of high quality provision for young people in the future. Funding is especially required in sectors where there is no strong tradition of apprenticeships and where employers require incentives to take on apprentices. The funding should be focused on encouraging employers through grants and/or tax incentives and the current £1,500 bursary scheme should be expanded. If apprenticeships are to become the vocational training route of choice then spending on the development of a proper and sustainable infrastructure for the future is essential.

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

We have already made reference to the issue of compliance as opposed to quality and believe this distinction to be confusing and counter-productive. There is an urgent need to define the quality criteria that will underpin compliant AFs through a dialogue between all stakeholders on a similar basis to the quality criteria developed for National Occupational Standards. We return to our earlier concern that quality does not mean uniformity across all sectors with rigid impositions of on and off job guided learning hours. More hours do not mean a better learning experience and more emphasis on the quality of the apprentice’s total learning experience is required. We believe that there should be more Level 3 apprenticeships to provide progression and to help raise the profile and status of apprenticeships but that they need to complement existing provision rather than compete with it. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the unique selling points of Level 3 apprenticeships both for employers and potential apprentices as well as ensuring that they are recognised and given credit within the educational system.

5. 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 believe the bonus system will encourage small and medium sized businesses to take on apprentices but it needs to be linked to a compelling argument that apprentices will enhance their skill base and benefit their profitability. Relatively modest bonuses will not in themselves bring about the culture change required at a time of major economic downturn. The skills argument has to be proposed and won in order to gain large scale engagement with the apprenticeship system. A major difficulty facing small and medium businesses is the uneven distribution of delivery of training and more should be done to create a regional infrastructure of deliverers to ensure viable cohorts of apprentices can receive the vocational training they need. Asset Skills has piloted a model for such support through its Academy and we believe this form of brokerage is at least as important as any individual financial incentive such as bonuses.

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

Representing sectors with a large number of people over 19 who would benefit from apprenticeships we would argue for a more generous funding of the 19-24 age cohort, whilst recognising the financial constraints we are currently subject to. We understand the concern that apprenticeships should not be used to fund existing employees but would argue that there are many in the older age range who are being denied the opportunity of an apprenticeship despite the fact that their added maturity might make an apprenticeship the ideal learning vehicle. 16-18 year olds have a wide range of alternative learning opportunities open to them which the older age group do not. Ring-fencing money to support eligible 19-24 year olds would assist many of our employers to take on apprentices.

10 February 2012