The 20-per-cent off-the-job training rule is the biggest barrier to apprenticeship recruitment according to an FE Week survey – but Anne Milton will not budge on it.

The contentious policy was attacked by more than a quarter of respondents to our annual survey, where we asked readers which single policy change would make the apprenticeship reforms more successful.

Despite this, the skills minister has insisted once more that it is a “protected characteristic” and won’t be changing – even at the lowest levels.

“Twenty per cent is really important, because an apprenticeship is about earning while you’re learning, so if you don’t have time off from the job you’re not learning anything,” she told FE Week at a special National Apprenticeship Week event on Monday.

Our survey, now in its third year, asked readers for their views on the changes to the apprenticeships system brought in last year – including the requirement that all apprentices must now spend 20 per cent of their working time in off-the-job training.

It doesn’t make sense to invest the same in a level two as a level six

One of the questions asked: “If you could change, remove or introduce just one policy to make the apprenticeship reforms more successful, what would it be and why?”

Of the 286 people who answered, 76 said the 20-per-cent rule needed changing or scrapping altogether – making it the most commonly cited bugbear among respondents.

Dianne Travis, director of workplace skills and guidance at Babcock Training Ltd, said the requirement for the training to be “completed within the time an apprentice is paid to work” should be changed.

“Employers in many sectors can’t afford an apprentice who is ‘non-productive’ for one day every week in order to meet this requirement,” she said.

And Louise Timperley, apprenticeship engagement manager at The Co-op, said the “blanket percentage” for off-the-job training at all levels should be reviewed.

“It doesn’t make sense to invest the same in a level two as a level six, try a phased approach,” she said.

But when FE Week put this concern to Ms Milton, she suggested that someone following a level two apprenticeship could use some of their off-the-job training time to upskill to a higher level.

“It’s disappointing if we see learning as just confined by the end-point assessment,” she said.

Anne Milton

“For someone employing a person at level two, they must surely see the benefit of increasing the skills of that young person even if they’re not essential to the level two qualification.”

Monday’s event to mark National Apprenticeship Week was hosted by WhiteHat, an apprenticeship agency co-founded by Euan Blair, the son of Tony Blair, and Sophie Adelman.

Unlike many of our survey respondents, both saw the 20-per-cent rule as an opportunity rather than a challenge.

Campaigning against it “degrades the quality of an apprenticeship”, Ms Adelman said.

“Obviously there needs to be a level of flexibility around what it can contain but we think that people spending their time doing additional learning is not a bad thing.”

The rule has been a major bone of contention among employers since it was introduced last May, particularly smaller firms that claim they cannot afford to let apprentices spend a fifth of their time away from work.

It has had a knock-on effect for providers struggling to convince companies to take on apprentices – prompting demands for greater flexibility on the rule from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers at its autumn conference last November.

For more on FE Week’s survey, see the National Apprenticeship Week supplement included with this week’s issue.



Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

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

2 Comments

  1. There’s an obvious flaw in the argument that a level 2 apprentice could undertake learning at a higher or broader level than that required by the standard. Funding rules are clear that only learning and assessment stated within the standard can be paid for from the levy funds. If employers want more, they’re expected to pay for it themselves.

    And what’s that reference to Level two qualifications? The government have deliberately stripped out ‘qualifications’ claiming they’re not needed.

    The whole thing is a mess.

  2. Off the job training is a crucially important element of any high quality apprenticeship. And in my view 20% is a reasonable proportion to assign to the off the job element. However, I would like to make a few comments in relation to the article. If the Minister did state that without this off the job element, the apprentice wouldn’t be learning anything, she is grossly underestimating the importance of the on the job learning – which has been a critical element, and arguably the most critical element, of apprenticeship both of the present day as well as going back to the medieval guilds. I agree with Diane from Babcock that what needs to be relaxed is for the off the job element to be completed during the working day. Unlike the article, and similar others like it, I would argue that a level 2 apprentices should be entitled to time off work to undertake off the job training to compensate for the low wage they are usually on. However, for senior and middle managers, often on a decent wage, undertaking a higher or degree apprenticeship, I believe they could undertake some of the 20% off the job in their own time, thus contributing to the overall cost. We have some excellent employers who are electing not to use their levy for management apprenticeships and instead paying us full cost commercial rates because they cannot afford to have their managers on 4 day weeks – they would have to recruit many more managers to cover operations during these days. This commercial training is identical to apprenticeships, satisfying all of the on and off the job components, but some of the off the job training (not even all of it, but some of it) is taking place via evening classes. I would disagree with anyone that tells me this is workplace training as it is a good apprenticeship in everything but name.