Proposals for apprentices to be successfully graded will pass, merit or distinction for their skills have been rejected, FE Week can reveal.
Trailblazer employer groups who have been helping develop new apprenticeship frameworks had been instructed to incorporate the three-grade system for marking successful outcomes.
We have agreed that for these occupations the grades of pass, merit, distinction, will be based on the apprentice’s mastery of the knowledge and behaviour elements within these specific apprenticeship standards.”
But Skills Minister Matthew Hancock has agreed to reject the idea for skills elements of programmes in the automotive and aerospace sectors after warnings that “you’re either capable of doing a thing or not”.
“We agreed this position for these particular standards as the employers felt that a significant amount of the skills elements could not be graded,” Mr Hancock told FE Week.
He added that other trailblazers were free to approach him to talk about their own standards.
“We have been open about this with the other trailblazers so that they are able to discuss any questions or issues they want to raise on grading for their apprenticeship standards,” said Mr Hancock.
Richard Hamer, education director and head of early career programmes at BAE Systems Plc, which is an aerospace Trailblazer, said: “We will have grades for the knowledge part of the course and the academic part of the course, but the skills element just can’t be graded in the same way.
“We took the view that this is binary — either you can put the wing on the plane or you can’t, you’re either capable of doing a thing or not — so those parts of it are not graded.
“We had a conversation with the minister and we explained to him that it’s just not workable, and he accepted the logic behind that.”
The idea of grading, rather than a simple pass or fail, was promoted by BAE group managing director Nigel Whitehead in his Review of Adult Vocational Qualifications in England last year. It was also put forward as a possibility in former Dragons’ Den investor Doug Richard’s 2012 Review of Apprenticeships.
Mr Richard said that “excellence should be celebrated — grading will help to enable this”, while Mr Whitehead’s review said grading would “increase the qualifications’ value to employers and individuals”.
The guidance document for the first group of Trailblazers, formed in October, said: “All new apprenticeships will be graded, with apprentices who successfully complete awarded a pass, merit or distinction.”
However, the guidance document published for the second round of Trailblazers this month did not include the instruction on grading.
Instead, it said: “As a minimum, grading will be applied to the end point assessment, and a pass will demonstrate full competency.”
However, the three-grade system looks to be remaining for both knowledge and behaviour elements of apprenticeships.
Mr Hancock said: “Grading is important to raise aspiration and mark high quality performance in an apprenticeship.
“We want an employer-driven apprenticeship programme and therefore where employers have raised questions or issues through the trailblazer process we have worked closely with them to look into these and find the best way forward.
“We have been responsive to employers and the aerospace and automotive trailblazers discussed in detail how we would implement grading in each trailblazer.
“We have agreed that for these occupations the grades of pass, merit, distinction, will be based on the apprentice’s mastery of the knowledge and behaviour elements within these specific apprenticeship standards.”
—–editorial—–
Keep it simple
It’s a lovely idea to tell someone that their work is more than simply passable.
But if you’re just looking at whether a person can or can’t do something then it might all get a little complicated.
Judging whether someone had achieved pass, merit or distinction would have to go needlessly down to the minutiae of the job.
Our tyre-changing learners (pictured above) paint the picture neatly.
For how long did the learner carry the pneumatic drill at 90 degrees? How polished were the wheel nuts?
Won’t the result be the same?
Thankfully, Skills Minister Matthew Hancock has hit the brakes on the idea having listened to his Trailblazers.
Timely proof that employer-led might actually mean just that.
Nigel Whitehead was also very sympathetic to the point when I raised it – in the context of safety-critical competence in the maritime sector – at a seminar earlier this week. This is helpful and sensible flexibility by Matthew Hancock.
If only people would learn from history. All of this was given an unbelievable amount of thought back in 1987 in consultation with employers when the first NVQ was approved. The key way of showing that an apprentice has additional skills is to have additional units that reflect higher level skills. Just because the competence element of the apprenticeship framework has eight units should not restrict the opportunity for an apprentice to show that they can do more. If truly employer led, employers could develop additional units that reflect niche skills for their requirements. However, the theoretical understanding of essential background knowledge can be tested in a way that demonstrates the level of understanding of an apprentice. Indeed it really needs to. The survey published by the Training Standards Council near it’s demise (authored by myself around 16 years ago) made a recommendation that was not properly implemented around the need to introduce technical certificates – otherwise there was a danger of a dilution in knowledge as those who just displayed ‘competence’ later went into teaching and taught skills and theory to their own limits, diluting what was being taught year-on-year. This was happening at that time and no one since has really carried out research to see if it was reversed or is still happening.
Grading of apprentices is stupid and I suspect those who have suggested it have not completed an apprenticeship themselves. The academic courses that apprentices take at college, such as BTEC National, are graded and this should be the case.
On first thought I thought the idea of grading competence madness Then I saw a world skills competition? All were clearly competent, but some were clearly better than others, in terms of speed, product, skill and technique.
Recently I looked at some pieces hand engineered by level 3 engineering students. All were in tolerance and would be considered to be competent but one consistently produced product which were amazingly brilliant and in a quicker timescale than his peers.His work was so accurate we could actually use hand tools to measure the tolerance he consistently worked too. He was clearly outstanding compared to his peers but would receive the same recognition.
If we are able to compare learners competing in World Skills competitions and make judgments upon their work compared to that of their peers or against a particular standard, surely there must be a similar method that could be employed?
I agree that competence is binary, but it does make we wonder if we should be striving for more than just being competent, after all its only one grade away from being incompedent