Uptake on the government’s flagship traineeship scheme is failing to reach expectations, according to senior FE figures.

It is too soon for Ofsted to report on the quality of traineeships in any detail…

Skills Funding Agency boss Keith Smith (pictured) said colleges would deliver 57 per cent of projected 19 to 23 traineeships, while Ofsted FE and skills director Matthew Coffey (pictured right) described recruitment to the scheme as “disappointing”.

The pair’s comments about traineeships came during the Association of Colleges annual conference.

Mr Smith, the agency’s executive director for funding and programmes, told delegates that “colleges have indicated they will deliver around 57 per cent of projected 19 to 23 traineeship starts for 2013/14”.

However, the agency said Mr Smith had given out a figure that was “not official” and could not supply the numbers behind his claim.

An agency spokesperson said: “This indicative figure is based on discussions we have had with providers on what they intend to deliver.

“The first official data on traineeships is expected to be available in the Statistical First Release in January 2014.”

But Mr Coffey challenged colleges to increase the number of traineeships on offer. However, Ofsted too was unable to back his claim with figures.

He said: “The initial recruitment to traineeships is disappointing. In making the impact of vocational training a priority for us, we will work to increase the quality of provision — but we expect providers to engage with employers to increase the number of places available.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “It is too soon for Ofsted to report on the quality of traineeships in any detail as, so far, we have not come across as many as expected during our inspections of FE and skills providers.”

Traineeships, programmes including high quality work experience as well as literacy, numeracy and employability training, were launched in September, and are designed for young people who lack the skills and experience to be accepted into work or an apprenticeship.

Learners who spend more than 16 hours a week in lessons or the workplace as part of their traineeship programme are not eligible to claim job seeker’s allowance, which has previously prompted fears that young people will be discouraged from taking part.

The option to run traineeships is currently only available to providers with an Ofsted grade one or two inspection result, which the education watchdog spokesperson said might account for the lack of traineeships seen by inspectors.

“One of the reasons is because our risk-based approach to selecting providers for inspection, prioritises those previously judged to be grade three and four for overall effectiveness and so are not able to provide traineeships,” she said.

However, she added: “Having said that, what evidence we have does not suggest good recruitment levels.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said the policy of restricting traineeships to grade one and two providers could be limiting numbers and called for a review.

An AELP spokesperson said: “There are many providers with a strong employer reach currently excluded from the programme.

“Given that work experience is such a critical element of traineeships, provider eligibility needs to be reviewed.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Mark C Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 Comments

  1. Angry provider

    Given that there are plenty of grade 4 colleges already delivering, why not just add Traineeships to the mess. Remember that its all about the headline numbers for the SFA and minister.

    Of course the SFA won’t be able to give exact figures because their data systems are in a shambles 5 months into the academic year…funding data is still working is going so payments will be on profile again in December! How the heck are providers supposed to pay subs and run their businesses???????

    Disgrace

  2. Perhaps employers are confused about Traineeships….. Training Providers have been promoting and delivering apprenticeships to employers with a great deal of success over a significant period of time. Employers are really taking on-board the value of apprenticeships. Now they being faced with something new… Traineeships won’t happen overnight ……

  3. When Quickfit were crucified in the media for not paying people on work experience the success of a programme reliant on employers to provide it was sealed. To benefit from work experience the trainee needs to realise they are getting free expertise that is costing the employer time and effort to give it. If the trainee shows the right aptitude, at the least they will gain a reference to show they know what the world of work is all about. However, in other cases the employer will have had the chance to ‘try before you buy’ and may offer a permanent job/apprenticeship. After that tirade of negative publicity for an employer ask yourself ‘would you put yourself up for the same negative treatment?’ The introduction of traineeships was rushed and not thought out, it is not how many get placed on them but how many get a good experience of real working life and expectations.

  4. Can anyone honestly say that they expected the number of traineeships to be high after the negative pasting given to Quick Fit for not paying trainees on work experience? To give such trainees a decent experience that involves any form of training will cost employers both in terms of their effort and staff time; almost certainly involving some of their better staff. The trainee will get an awful lot from it, particularly around evidence for a CV reflecting their aptitude for work, as well as a possible positive reference from an employer. If the employer likes what they see, it could be the ‘try before you buy’ scenario where they take someone on as an apprentice. How many employers who were thinking about getting involved will have changed their minds about the potential hassle and negative publicity. Also, how many trainees have been given work experience in government departments? If the scheme is ever to work, there needs to be some leadership that has more of an impact than the shrinking number of young apprentices being taken on. Who can offer traineeships is a red herring as the employers must be there first regardless. The wonders of subcontracting also means that anyone can deliver the offer. The number of those classified as being NEET has just fallen, perhaps because of the raising participation and so many staying on at school. On the ground there are worryingly high numbers of recent graduates in the NEETs group for whom not a lot of initial advice and guidance has been given about their employment prospects by their schools, who pushed them into degrees without telling them the full picture. Much easier to talk about level 2 qualifications offered by colleges though if you want to deflect attention from the unemployed graduates and 40% of 16 year olds not getting their English or maths GCSEs.

  5. Our EFA allocation for 2013-14 based as it was on data from 2011-12 is so small that I have decided to prioritise full time Study Programme learners over Traineeships. We could deliver a reasonable number of Traineeships but I can’t fund everything and other more needy students must take precedence. This is the result of the EFAs lagged funding system that is unable to take account of current demand.

  6. I cannot think of one good thing to say about the supposed senior mgt in the SFA etc. I would really like to know what experience they have of training? Also these schemes are re-invented, think PLA’s which actually worked, they gave young people a chance however limiting them to grade 1/2 is nonsense, a lot of prime providers with traineeship money are not this so who thought this one up ? Another daft idea from a failing regime. Next up, apprentice money to employers, Michael Gove must wake up in the morning and think ‘what can I say today to screw the system up some more……. I think I will make everyone deliver GCSE’s’ Wait for it…………. ( ps sorry for being cynical but these people have really lost the plot!)

  7. OurWelfare

    Rightly, people are appalled by the fact people on traineeships are paid nothing for the time and energy they are expected to put in. People need an income and traineeships don’t offer one, they don’t offer a guarantee of one either so it’s a hugely unappealing prospect. Companies must pay for the privilege of developing the skills they want for their business and participants must be paid enough to live on. The privilege of gaining skills is just an excuse for business to get something for free without having to guarantee anything back. We need a proper relationship between public funds, business profits and a decent wage. Corporate welfare doesn’t make sense if welfare support isn’t available to everyone else. I look forward to seeing traineeships replaced with proper apprenticeships that are funded sensibly by the company using them for labour (current and future) as well as providing a living wage to the apprentice too.