6 Quality
Introduction
135. We received evidence expressing
concern that the UK was falling behind its international competitors,
in terms of the skill of its workforce, and that this was being
perpetuated by the quality of the apprenticeship programme. For
example, in the following comments from Professor Lord Richard
Layard and Dr. Hilary Steedman of the Centre for Economic Performance
at the London School of Economics and Political Science:
England is the only country where
apprenticeships at Level 2 far outnumber those offered at Level
3. In Australia most apprenticeships are at Certificate 3 level
and in France just under half are at Level 2. In the dual system
countries, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, and in Ireland, almost
all apprenticeships are at Level 3. [...]
Level 3 should be the minimum level
aimed for in apprenticeship but apprentices would need at least
two and probably three years to reach this level, as is the case
in other European countries.[199]
This generally accords with the NAO's
report, which stated that "most apprenticeships in England
are at a lower level than those in other countries. Only 33 per
cent of apprenticeships are at advanced level, compared with 60
per cent in France, for example".[200]
136. The Minister left little room
for doubt that he had international comparisons in mind, and two
specific economies "in his sights": [201]
I expect us to overtake France.
When I was in Germany recently I told them I eventually expected
to overtake Germany too. I will make our system the best in the
world.[202]
Speaking more generally, he went on
to say that "there is always a tension between quantity and
quality, which is why I am so determined to place this unprecedented
emphasis on quality in the apprenticeship programme".[203]
NAS also assured us that "quality and ensuring that everybody
can have confidence in apprenticeships is the top priority for
us at the moment".[204]
To that end, the Department submitted a list of measures that
had recently been announced, which aimed to improve the quality
of the programme. These improvements, and also those received
from witnesses, broadly fell into six categories; employment,
statutory standards, skills, training providers, duration of frameworks
and progression. In this chapter we summarise these announcements
and examine the evidence and discussion around them.
Employment
137. The Department has announced
that an apprenticeship should only be recognised if it involves
genuine employment:
Apprenticeships must be real jobs
and, as such, the nature of the training they include has to be
tied to real opportunities and be led by employer demand. Quality
is paramount—an Apprenticeship should represent a significant
learning experience for an individual, with clear progression
routes into higher learning and more rewarding work, and offering
a genuine productivity gain for the employer.[205]
138. This announcement sits well
with the bulk of our evidence. We have already discussed the importance
of genuine employment within the definition of an apprenticeship
programme. Much of the evidence we have received on this topic
agreed with the Government that employment is key to quality and
perception of the apprenticeship scheme. Furthermore, such an
arrangement does not only benefit the apprentice. The Heating
and Ventilating Contractors' Association reminded us that "apprentices
are employed and make a valued contribution to that employer for
the duration of their apprenticeship which is on average a minimum
of four years".[206]
139. There were some, however, who
argued that this requirement added to the cost of hiring an apprentice.
For example the Chief Engineer at Doosan Power Systems Ltd told
us through the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board
that:
The insistence on apprentices now
being employed status and paid a minimum wage significantly increases
the employer cost burden in taking apprentices, and further magnifies
the funding gap between 16-18 and 19-24 groups.[207]
140. The burden on employers
must always be a consideration when imposing such regulation on
the industry. Overall, however, we agree with the bulk of evidence,
that the balance between industrial burden and apprenticeship
quality in relation to employment criteria has been found successfully
by the Government.
Specification of Apprenticeship Standards
141. In January 2011, the Government
proposed a set of standards underpinning the apprenticeship programme.
The Department explained that:
The Specification of Apprenticeship
Standards for England (SASE) sets out the standards that all
Apprenticeship frameworks in England must meet. SASE is designed
to ensure the consistency of Apprenticeships and that all frameworks
offer substantial on and off the job guided learning leading to
the achievement of recognised high-quality qualifications and
an Apprenticeship Completion Certificate.[208]
The National Apprenticeship Service
confirmed to us that these requirements had been successfully
rolled out:
All Apprenticeship frameworks in
England have been reviewed by the issuing authority to ensure
the framework is SASE compliant. NAS has worked with the UKCES
and supported the Sector Skills Councils/Bodies in this process
to ensure quality and authorise funding for the Frameworks.
The introduction of SASE has helped
ensure that there is minimum on and off the job training time
and that there is greater clarity about job roles, NAS has been
pivotal in ensuring that providers understand how their delivery
models need to be adapted to comply with the new SASE quality
standards.[209]
142. Several witnesses supported
the introduction of SASE. The Trades Union Congress told us that
their introduction "was a welcome development, given that
there was previously no national minimum standard for apprenticeship
frameworks".[210]
The 157 group also welcomed the introduction of consistent standards,
but warned that these needed to be monitored:
The introduction of SASE is welcomed
and will help ensure that all providers are delivering qualifications
within the framework that add value. [...] There are no guidelines
currently as to who will carry that role out, and this could once
again jeopardise the Apprenticeship reputation.[211]
143. Others, however, including
Energy & Utility Skills Limited[212],
Engineering Construction Industry Training Board[213]
and People 1st[214]
raised concerns that the introduction of consistent standards
did not allow for necessary flexibility, particularly in some
sectors. Asset skills summarised this point:
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.
144. We support the introduction
of statutory standards (SASE) and the improvement to quality that
they appear to have brought to apprenticeships. However, 18 months
after their introduction, it would be appropriate to properly
examine their impact. We therefore recommend that NAS reviews
the impact of the implementation of the standards on training
quality, regulatory burden and framework availability. We further
recommend that it consults across sectors to assess the regulatory
burden and suitability of the regime across the economy.
English, maths and functional skills
145. The Government decided:
To replace Key Skills in English
and maths with Functional Skills, ensuring apprentices were supported
to attain more stretching and transferable qualifications in these
skills which are so vital for progression. We are now working
to help training providers introduce the new qualifications.[215]
These Functional Skills were introduced
into SASE and Apprenticeship frameworks in April 2011.[216]
In addition, the Department committed to:
Requiring every provider to support
their apprentices in progressing towards the achievement of Level
2 in English and maths. From Academic Year 12/13 all Apprenticeship
providers will be required to provide opportunities to support
Apprentices in progressing towards achievement of Level 2 functional
skills or GCSE qualifications and will be measured on their success
in ensuring that Apprentices who have not already achieved this
standard are able to complete it as part of their Apprenticeship
programme.[217]
146. The introduction of functional
skills appeared to have been largely accepted by training providers.
For example, the Principal of Northampton College, Len Closs,
told us that these skills were fundamental to what he considered
to be an apprenticeship:
From our point of view as a training
provider, an apprenticeship is a package of learning and skills
development, combined with elements of functional skills in mathematics,
English and information technology and a number of soft skills
as well, in line with the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards.[218]
The Royal Aeronautical Society expressed
hope that the consistent and statutory introduction of such skills
would solve its "fundamental concern regards the basic English
and Maths skills of candidates".[219]
147. Other witnesses, however, expressed
concerns that the introduction of classroom-based skills learning
would put off apprentices who had decided to take up vocational
training to get away from such learning. As the Director and General
Manager of Carillion Training Services, Ray Wilson, explained:
I am very concerned by the introduction
of Functional Skills, particularly in the construction sector,
where we have seen a commensurate fall in those able to achieve
those levels on leaving school. That will lead to a decline, I
think, in success rate, which makes that very difficult contractually.
I would call for the Government to re-look at Functional Skills
very carefully in terms of its demanding requirements but also
its very much classroom-based nature, which many young people
entering this sector—the construction sector—will
find extremely difficult.[220]
The UK Contractors Group agreed, and
cited the construction industry as being unfairly affected. It
told us that, because of the typically low levels of functional
skills in their apprentices, this would significantly affect completion
rates:
There are concerns that [...] a
minimum of Level 2 in English and maths, alongside the introduction
of Functional Skills into apprenticeship frameworks [...] will
make it more difficult for many construction apprentices to complete
their frameworks.
In particular the standards within
functional skills programmes at all levels are generally considered
to be more difficult than the current key skills framework which
they will replace.[221]
It went on to argue that:
We are aware that other sectors
have raised similar concerns about the difficulty of functional
skills for some apprentices, and the more classroom based methods
of assessment which can be a 'turn-off' for some young people,
particularly those who performed less well at school.[222]
148. The Association of Employment
and Learning Providers accepted the importance of English, Maths
and functional skills in principle, but expressed concern that
they would impose an additional cost burden on employers. It told
us that this additional cost should be met by the Government:
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.[223]
Skillsmart Retail Limited agreed and
recommended that the Government should consult with employers
about the additional burden that this put on industry:
The potential impacts of delivering
Functional Skills as part of the Apprenticeship framework should
be explored through consultation with employers and learning providers
via SSCs [Sector Skill Councils] to establish if working hours
or delivery costs are negatively affected.[224]
It concluded that "currently it
is felt that additional funding would be required to support the
resources needed to deliver this".[225]
149. It is important that employees
have functional skill levels of literacy and numeracy to match
those of our international competitors. However, this should not
disadvantage the ability of specific groups to access training
and accreditation. To that end, we endorse the principle that
transferrable and core skills should be part of apprenticeship
framework. However, we recommend that the 'functional skills'
regime be reviewed by the Department twelve months after their
introduction. The Department should consult with industry to review
the recruitment of apprentices and we recommend that it reports
on whether the introduction of 'functional skills' has unfairly
discriminated against any group of apprentices (for example those
in a specific sector) from completing a framework. If it is proved
to be so, we recommend that the Department works with industry
to develop alternative models of providing such training. The
development of functional skills should be a feature of, not a
bar to, apprenticeships.
Training providers
150. The Department is also committed
to:
More robust and timely action to
crack down on poor provision that does not meet standards that
learners and employers demand—withdrawing funding where
quality does not improve quickly.[226]
This was combined with a commitment
to increase transparency about training providers, enabling employers
and apprentices to have better information on provider performance:
Driving quality through consumer
empowerment and transparency by improving employer and apprentice
access to objective and comparable information on providers. Giving
employers and learners better information about provider performance
and about the level of government investment in their training
will better enable them to act as informed purchasers of training,
and be a critical tool in driving up quality and rooting out poor
provision.[227]
151. Currently the main source of
evidence on provider quality is the independent regulator, the
Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
(Ofsted). The majority of those who submitted evidence on this
topic supported recent changes to improve provider quality. For
example Liverpool City Council attributed the recent rise in quality
to the tackling of poor providers (as well as the introduction
of SASE):
The improvements in quality have
been driven by the work undertaken by providers and funding bodies
to improve the quality of apprenticeships. This has included the
introduction of Minimum Levels of Performance and the withdrawal
of funding of poor provision and this has been a welcome development
and should continue to be used to drive up standards and outcomes.[228]
152. Driving out poor providers
may be assisted by greater transparency. The Manufacturing Technologies
Association told us that placing more power with the employers
would tackle poor provision and argued that if employers controlled
funding, it would prevent funds going to poor providers:[229]
In a truly demand led system, in
which employers carried the funding, wasteful or just downright
poor providers would be squeezed out as employers opted for the
best and most appropriate.[230]
The Director of the TUC's Unionlearn,
Tom Wilson, told us that, while transparency should be applauded,
it was not possible to measure and rate all elements of a learner's
experience:
Quality [...] is something that
is not measured well enough. The evidence on it—the data—is
still rather poor. We have proxies in the form of duration, or
completion rates, or possibly progression.
It is as much about their employment
education experience as their classroom education experience.
Measuring all of that, and improving understanding and transparency
around that, is very important to raising quality in a much deeper
sense.[231]
153. We have been cautioned that
the learner experience is complex and hard to quantify. The Government
has promised to improve access to objective and comparable information
relating to training providers. We recommend the Department sets
out its timetable for delivering this information.
Duration of frameworks
154. The Department and National
Apprenticeship Service set out the most recent developments regarding
the length of apprenticeship frameworks:
The duration of the Apprenticeship
is expected to reflect that set out by employers in the relevant
Apprenticeship framework document, but at the very least must
meet the minimum duration requirement announced by NAS. Apprenticeships
for apprentices aged 16-18 must last at least 12 months. For those
Apprentices aged 19 or over the Apprenticeship should also last
at least 12 months unless relevant prior learning is recorded.
Where this is the case the Apprenticeship will not be less than
6 months. Apprenticeship delivery must be planned to make full
and effective use of the duration, including the opportunity for
apprentices to embed and extend their learning through repeated
workplace practice.[232]
This announcement is likely to have
been a reaction to high profile reports in the media around 'short
courses'. In 2011 and earlier this year, it was widely reported
that some apprenticeship courses were being delivered in as few
as 12 weeks. At the time there was no official maximum or minimum
guidance over the duration of apprenticeships but only the "expectation"
that a level two apprenticeship would last for around a year.
[233] The value
of these 'short courses' was questioned in terms of skills and
employment, as shown by headlines such as:
"Concern at 12 week
apprenticeships"—FE Week[234]
"The great apprentice
racket"—This is Money[235]
"Length matters as
apprenticeships face extension"—The Times (TES)[236]
"These empty apprenticeship
schemes are failing our young"—The Guardian[237]
"The great apprentice
scandal"—BBC Panorama[238]
"No benefit to short
apprenticeships"—The Independent[239]
155. The Government has addressed
these reports by imposing a minimum duration of 12 months for
all apprenticeships (unless the apprentice is aged over 19 and
has prior recorded learning). Several witnesses, however, warned
us against focussing too exclusively on the length of training.
For example the Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges,
Martin Doel, agreed that 12 months was a good starting point but
not the only measure of quality:
We are also comfortable with a presumed
12-month period for all other apprenticeships, and only by special
exceptions that it will not be the case. Twelve months seems to
me to be a reasonable period to alight upon, but it should not
[...] be an absolute proxy for quality, because it is more subtle
than that.[240]
The Minister seemed to agree, saying
that "I do not say [...] that there is an absolute correlation
between length and quality, but there is certainly a proxy relationship".[241]
156. Not all evidence that we received
on this topic supported the change. We heard concerns that the
imposition of minimum durations removed flexibility and potentially
damaged the appeal of the scheme for learners. For example the
training provider, JHP Group, told us that:
One of the qualities of vocational
training compared to traditional academic routes is the greater
flexibility to commence, progress and complete programmes at the
pace that suits, and is right for, the individual. Learners' (or
indeed employers') motivation and participation on programme should
not be mitigated by forcing a one-size fits all duration.[242]
Creative and Cultural Skills agreed
that, while 12 months should be the norm, gifted learners should
have the ability to progress faster (if both the employer and
training provider agreed).[243]
City Gateway also argued that the policy of minimum durations
was a disincentive for the more talented learner and could hold
them back:
Not every learner takes 12 months
to complete an Apprenticeship, and in a number of cases this holds
them back from progressing to an Advanced Level 3 Apprenticeship,
and therefore better jobs in the future.[244]
157. Others argued that the lack
of flexibility would be unable to accommodate the varying requirements
of different sectors. For example the Food and Drink Federation
told us of its concerns that employers lacked flexibility to apply
training to specific job roles:
We are concerned that employers'
requirement for flexibility will be compromised following recent
announcements about 'minimum duration' of apprenticeships to be
set at 12 months. New Apprenticeship Frameworks [...] are designed
to put the learner at the heart of learning according to their
specific needs and the specific detail of their job role—not
to impose a rigid timescale on delivery.[245]
The Chairman of the Northamptonshire
Enterprise Partnership, Paul Southworth, used the example of Church
& Co Footwear to demonstrate that firms needed frameworks
to be flexible to their needs. He told us how Church & Co
had set up its own apprenticeship to achieve the flexibility it
required:
I think the quality of apprenticeships
is going to relate to the sectors themselves and, therefore, what
we saw as an example in Church's this morning is that they have
had to go it alone because they have developed their own apprenticeships.[246]
158. Despite this, some witnesses
argued for more demanding standards arguing that one year was
still not long enough. The Heating and Ventilating Contractors'
Association told us that current apprenticeships in its sector
lasted much longer than a year:
Apprentices are trained to a minimum
of Level Three and shown a variety of pathways to further develop
their skills to a higher level. Apprentices are employed and make
a valued contribution to that employer for the duration of their
apprenticeship which is on average a minimum of four years.[247]
UCATT (the union for construction workers)
told us that one year was not enough time to train an apprentice
with the wide range of skills needed on top of technical competence:
Employers want to be sure that new
staff have the skills required to work efficiently and safely.
For an apprenticeship in construction to be of value to young
people and their current and future employers, it needs to be
a work based learning package supplemented by college education.
It is not possible to equip apprentices with the necessary technical
competence, key skills and health and safety knowledge in one
year.[248]
FE LOANS
159. For some potential apprentices,
the introduction of minimum durations may have extended the amount
of time that they expected to have been in training. This should
be seen in the context of the Government moving away from grants
for some learners, and replacing them with student loans, to be
paid back once the student earns over £21,000. This expansion
of student loans will affect all learners (including apprentices)
aged over 24 who are training for a Level 3 qualification or above
(see Box 1).
Box 1: FE Loans[249]
| The government is introducing student loans for learners aged 24 and above in further education and training studying at Level 3 and above, including Advanced and Higher Apprenticeships. They will be called 24+ Advanced Learning Loans and will apply to those starting their course or apprenticeship on or after 1 August 2013.
24+ Advanced Learning Loans will replace government grants for this group, who represent around 10% of learners. Younger learners and those seeking to gain basic qualifications at Level 2 and below will continue to be funded by the grants they don't have to pay back.
24+ Advanced Learning Loans will cover the cost of tuition, so learners do not have to pay upfront. They will be available from the Student Loans Company, like other student loans. Repayments are a fixed proportion of income, start once the borrower earns over £21,000, and are set at 9% of income over that threshold.
If learners take out a loan for an access course and subsequently go on to higher education, their loans are rolled into one and only one monthly repayment is made. Interest on the loans will be lower than anything available on the high street and linked to inflation. Any balance outstanding is written off after 30 years.
By introducing loans, the government is maintaining access to learning in the context of lower public expenditure. Government grant funding will focus on young people, those without basic skills and those seeking work.
24+ Advanced Learning Loans will enable thousands of people to benefit from life changing opportunities. Evidence shows that people with qualifications at higher levels get greater benefit in the job market and it is fair for them to make a proportionate contribution to the cost of their training.
BIS asked a representative sample of learners what they thought. 74% said they would consider doing a course following the introduction of loans. And overall, people were positive about the terms and conditions.
A full programme of information events for colleges and training organisations is underway, and from September we'll be making comprehensive information about loans available for people considering learning. We are working closely with the Student Loans Company to ensure learners will be able to apply for their loans from April 2013.
|
160. The Department confirmed
that FE Loans will be introduced in 2013. It told us:
The Government remains committed
to introducing FE loans for those 24+ at Level 3 from AY201314,
which will affect those taking Apprenticeships at this level.
The introduction of loans is expected to provide further stimulus
to quality improvement across the FE sector, as learners become
more demanding and make more informed decisions about their investments.
The case for loans is supported by the evidence cited above of
higher returns for Apprenticeships at the advanced level, with
payback starting only after completion of the course and rising
incrementally after an income of at least £21,000 has been
achieved.
The Government has consulted extensively
with employers in developing our approach to introducing FE loans,
and will continue to work closely with employer bodies to ensure
that the system is effective and continues to support high levels
of participation.[250]
This led us to question how the
combination of mandatory longer courses and obligation for older
apprentices to pay for their training would affect take-up as
learners seek more efficiency. There is a risk that those affected
may be put off going into Level 3 training, which would not only
be a longer time commitment (often on a lower apprenticeship wage),
but might also have a lower perceived benefit as apprentices are
expected to repay such loans themselves in the future.
161. While a minimum duration
is not a substitution for a quality framework, we support the
Department's recent announcements of a minimum 12 month duration
for all apprenticeships frameworks. However, we are concerned
that this policy may have unintended consequences. We therefore
recommend that the Government closely monitors this requirement
and the impact on take-up of more talented apprentices (who may
feel held back by the policy) and older learners (who may be dissuaded
from training).
Progression
162. The Department told us how
it supported apprentices progressing through the scheme to higher
levels:
In focusing resources on supporting
employers who want to recruit 16-24 year olds, we will prioritise
especially those who are offering opportunities at Advanced Level
and above. The National Apprenticeship Service are promoting the
opportunities and benefits of progression to this level and beyond
to employers, young people and their parents and will support
employers to offer progression opportunities to young people who
achieve their Intermediate Level Apprenticeship.[251]
This was also a key priority for NAS:
The clear expectation of NAS arising
from Leitch and continuing with the Coalition Government was to
increase the number of Apprenticeships especially Advanced and
Higher Apprenticeships.[252]
The Trades Union Congress told us that
progression was fundamental to learning at work. They recommended
that apprentices should be able to force employers to progress
training and that there should be a "right to progress":
Progression goes to the heart of
the union view on learning at work and the need for individuals
to have the opportunity to continue to develop their skills, knowledge
and understanding to support career progression and improve their
quality of life.
The Coalition government has made
a welcome commitment to tackling barriers to progression and to
increase opportunities for people to achieve a level 3 apprenticeship
and to progress to higher education. However, the question remains
as to what degree this policy objective can be achieved through
exhortation and funding incentives, or whether some form of regulation
needs to be invoked to empower apprentices to have some form of
'right to progress'. The TUC believes that all apprentices who
have the aptitude and desire to progress should be given opportunities
to do so.[253]
163. However, concerns were raised
about the emphasis on encouraging progression to Higher and Advanced
apprenticeships across the board on two principle grounds: First,
the requirements of job roles and frameworks vary across sectors
and Higher and Advanced level apprenticeships are simply inappropriate
as the benchmark standard for some sectors. The National Specialist
Contractors' Council (NSCC) used the construction sector as an
example where intermediate (Level 2) apprenticeships were often
sufficient for employers needs:
It is essential that there is flexibility
and choice available to both the employer and the apprentice regarding
the level of training they choose to undertake. Level 2 apprenticeships
are of sufficient quality for many individuals and occupations
within construction. NSCC would support individuals being encouraged
to progress to a Level 3 apprenticeship where appropriate; however,
it needs to be recognised that many trades do not have access
to a Level 3 apprenticeship and that this is entirely appropriate
for that specific trade.
The decision as to what level of
apprenticeship is appropriate for any individual sector should
be made by that sector as they are the experts in the particular
trade. [254]
The British Retail Consortium agreed
that encouraging progression to Higher or Advanced level apprenticeships
across all sectors was not appropriate:
The decision about whether to increase
the number of Level 3 apprenticeships, should be based on the
needs of individual sectors. In the retail sector, for example,
the majority of employees will benefit from a Level 2 apprenticeship.
It is not yet clear that there is a proven case for greater numbers
of Level 3 apprenticeships—further evidence around this
would therefore be welcome.[255]
164. The Chief Executive of the
Association of Colleges, Martin Doel, summarised the issue from
his point of view:
The other thing about Level 2 to
Level 3 is that our evidence says not all sectors value or need
a Level 3 qualified work force. Therefore, getting a student to
the end of Level 2 and implying that they must go on to Level
3 when there are no jobs requiring those uprated skills is an
open question.[256]
165. While the apprenticeship programme
should be, primarily, an employer-led programme, there is a risk
that apprentices and students may become demotivated if their
ambitions for further advancement are thwarted as a result of
the requirements of employers and job roles. The Shropshire Training
Provider Network told us that the expectations of learners are
often not aligned with those of employers:
There is a mismatch between employer
requirements and learner aspirations. We still have a large number
of jobs which are at level two or below. The drive for more and
more advanced apprenticeships is creating an expectation among
young people and parents who then become unwilling to consider
the lower levels.[257]
166. The second ground questioned
whether the content of Higher/Advanced courses obstructed progression.
The Mimosa Healthcare Group explained that:
Progression from Level 2 to Level
3 apprenticeships is sometimes difficult, dependent on the vocational
sector. To expect 17-18 yr olds to progress straight from Level
2 to Level 3 in some sectors is a step too far. Many Level 3 qualifications
require apprentices to be working in a supervisory capacity, beyond
that of their current job roles, and [are] therefore inappropriate
until promoted. This is sometimes a few years later, following
a break from learning by the individual, and therefore reengagement
into learning has to take place, which is not always easy.[258]
The Herefordshire, Worcestershire and
Shropshire Training Providers Association agreed, and told us
that this problem was not restricted to the vocational sector,
but was common among many Advanced (Level 3) frameworks:
Level 3 apprenticeships often require
a job role with some responsibility either for supervision or
departmental responsibility—these can sometimes be a barrier
for young people. The system would benefit from Level 3 Apprenticeships
that are less focussed on management skills and more in line with
technical competence.[259]
167. Green Lantern Training told
us that apprentices wanted to be promoted and progress through
the scheme, but were frustrated by the admission requirements
of Level 3 frameworks:
The number of Level 3 Apprenticeships
is immaterial—as long as the frameworks are based on NVQs
then candidates will be restricted by their job roles anyway.
I have candidates who would love to do a Level 3 but can't because
that would mean they would need to find another job (impossible
right now) and get promoted (difficult right now as people are
staying in their jobs because they can't find another one).[260]
168. The Minister appeared to be
sympathetic and told us that he was aware that apprenticeship
training was not as structured as more academic training. He told
us that "the vocational pathway has never been as navigable,
as progressive or as seductive. We need to make it all of those
things. [...] We would expect people to start at the bottom of
that ladder and go right through".[261]
169. The UK's workforce should
be given the opportunity to become as highly skilled as possible
and we support the Government's drive to increase the number of
Higher and Advanced apprenticeships. However, the apprenticeship
scheme must reflect the demands of sectors in terms of job roles
and skills demanded. We recommend that the National Apprenticeship
Service works actively to encourage progression with employers.
We also recommend that the Government works with Sector Skill
Councils to ensure that, while they remain rigorous, Higher and
Advanced level apprenticeships are accessible to all those who
have the potential to complete them. Frameworks should be sufficiently
flexible not to disqualify such apprentices from progressing.
Specifically, the Department should review the appropriateness
of framework requirements such as, for example, to have had management
experience.
199 Ev w179 Back
200
National Audit Office, Adult Apprenticeships, 1 February
2012, para 6 Back
201
Q 747 Back
202
Q 747 Back
203
Q 768 Back
204
Q 540 Back
205
Ev 141 Back
206
Ev w154 Back
207
Ev w120 Back
208
Ev 141 Back
209
Ev 190 Back
210
Ev 208 Back
211
Ev w2 Back
212
Ev w111 Back
213
Ev w115 Back
214
Ev w240 Back
215
Ev 141 Back
216
Ev 190 Back
217
Ev 141 Back
218
Q 245 Back
219
Ev w252 Back
220
Q 348 Back
221
Ev w299 Back
222
Ev w299 Back
223
Ev 157 Back
224
Ev w263 Back
225
Ev w264 Back
226
Ev 141 Back
227
Ev 141 Back
228
Ev w190 Back
229
Discussed in more detail in paragraph 120 of this Report Back
230
Ev w207 Back
231
Q 491 Back
232
National Apprenticeship Service, Statement on Apprenticeship
Quality, May 2012 Back
233
FE Week, Concern at 12 week apprenticeships, 9 June 2011 Back
234
FE Week, Concern at 12 week apprenticeships, 9 June 2011 Back
235
Thisismoney.co.uk, The great apprentice racket, 2 October
2011 Back
236
Times Educational Supplement, Length matters as apprenticeships
face extension, 13 January 2012 Back
237
The Guardian, These empty apprenticeship schemes are failing
our young, 9 February 2012 Back
238
BBC Panorama, The Great Apprentice Scandal [last shown
8 April 2012] Back
239
The Independent, No benefit to short apprenticeships, 17
May 2012 Back
240
Q 494 Back
241
Q 718 Back
242
Ev w167 Back
243
Ev w94 Back
244
Ev w75 Back
245
Ev w131 Back
246
Q 310 Back
247
Ev w154 Back
248
Ev w284 Back
249
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website, 24+
Advanced Learning Loans [accessed 12 July 2012] Back
250
Ev 144 Back
251
Ev 145 Back
252
Ev 192 Back
253
Ev 209 Back
254
Ev w223-w224 Back
255
Ev w48 Back
256
Q 492 Back
257
Ev w257 Back
258
Ev w210 Back
259
Ev w152 Back
260
Ev w148 Back
261
Q 735 Back
|
