Reforms to apprenticeships could be leaving behind the lessons learned by the UKCES in the development of NOS, government adviser Nigel Whitehead warned in the last edition of FE Week. Simon Perryman picks up on the issue.

As we enter 2016, I remain an optimist for the UK skills system. Much of what we do is excellent, the budget settlement wasn’t as dreadful as some had predicted, the idea of a new style levy will certainly energise apprenticeship uptake and the area-based review process, together with greater devolution, is a sensible policy response in a challenging world.

Other countries look to the UK as an exemplar of effective and pragmatic employer engagement. They admire our labour market information (LMI), copy our occupational standards and competence-based approach to vocational education and try, but rarely have the courage to develop, employer-owned institutions like the UKCES and sector skills councils (SSCs). In particular, they envy our apprenticeships as the glue that binds employers and education together to support the proper introduction of young people into the world of work. They admire our system for its pragmatism and adaptability.

The Government was right that apprenticeships and standards needed to be adapted and refreshed. The challenge as ever will be whether we can effectively execute this raft of new policy. It worries me when I hear Nigel Whitehead from BAE Systems and a UKCES Commissioner, raising concerns on a public platform about occupational standards.

It is particularly disappointing that the Government in England seems to place so little value on NOS, when internationally they are held in the highest regard along with the rest of our competence-based approach to technical and vocational education.
Trailblazer work has added new energy to the standards debate and has been effective at engaging employers. Managed sensibly, Trailblazer standards can provide a valuable ‘front end’ to NOS, testing their relevance and enhancing their value. But, it seems curious that the Government continues to deny the importance of having UK-wide standards and fails to acknowledge the importance of SSCs in doing the ‘leg work’ of turning Trailblazer standards into apprenticeships that can be assessed.

Might it also have been better if we had started with a ‘road map’ of the occupations that needed to be covered rather than the ‘making-it-up-as-we-go-along’ approach to policy making that has led to proliferation and has been so frustrating for employers?
Shouldn’t we now be actively supporting SSCs in reaching out to their employers to co-ordinate Trailblazer work and its integration with NOS to retain our UK-wide system and make sure the new apprenticeships are ready for 2017?

Then there is the wider issue of delivering apprenticeships effectively. Is the Skills Funding Agency capable of delivering the new online Digital Apprenticeship Service? Its track record on IT and data collection hardly gives room for confidence.

Are colleges going to be able to step up quickly enough to take on the challenge of direct delivery. We are ready at Barnsley, with one of the best apprenticeship records in the country, but it would be good to have levy policy nailed down so we know what we are aiming at.

Just who is going to supply the energy to bring the new apprenticeship and levy system to life without totally confusing the business community? I hope Government creates an Institute for Apprenticeships that has employer leadership, the vision, the LMI and the partnership skills to continue to build a quality apprenticeship system for the UK. A system based on UK-wide consensus over a set of coherent occupational pathways, incorporating the best of Trailblazer standards and NOS for each part of the economy, supported by effective local brokerage to help bring education and business together.

I do remain optimistic for skills in the UK, but there is much we need to do together in 2016 to turn policy intent into practical reality if we want to continue to have an apprenticeship system that delivers quality as well as volume.

Having spent the last four weeks in the Americas, primarily the Caribbean and Brazil, it was interesting to compare the impact of vocational education on the growth of their economies.

What struck me as interesting was developing countries, including China, India and most of South America, don’t have the hang-ups we have in the UK, and also the USA, between vocational and academic learning.

Despite overwhelming evidence we learn more at the workplace than school, college and university put together, when it comes to developing skills policy this seems to be forgotten and academia rules, unless of course you need a plumber, hairdresser or carer for your own mum.

This looks like being another turbulent year for apprenticeship providers with so many unanswered questions about Trailblazers, end assessments and the levy.

The timetable for moving from Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England (SASE) frameworks to Trailblazer standards seems to have stalled, delayed or even been abandoned. The minister has told some employers they can retain their framework if they want to.

All participating employers knew what a SASE framework entailed, whereas each Trailblazer standard is unique with very different delivery and content requirements.

So employers who operate over several skill areas, even if their main occupation is ,say, manufacturing, will have clerical, or warehousing, or sales, or accounts, or maintenance apprentices all undertaking a very different type of apprenticeship not just with different vocational skills, but different delivery, assessment and end-testing requirements.

This will create difficulties for providers who operate over several sectors and for Ofsted inspectors to understand the vagaries of each standard. At least there now seems to be a glimmer of hope for standardisation with the realisation, led by Nigel Whitehead, that the National Occupational Standards (NOS) should still have a role. The NOS are the only common language we have to define vocational skills across all sectors.

There now seems to be a glimmer of hope for standardisation

Ironically, Trailblazer standards do not require formal qualifications, unless employers’ want them, resulting in the demise of awarding organisations (AOs) from apprenticeships.

However with the complex end assessment testing being devised by the various employer groups, AOs see themselves as the only party in town to undertake this, and in the hospitality sector have secured the monopoly.

End-testing with exams, interviews, projects, practical skills tests, etc, are estimated to cost on average a third of the total apprenticeship funding. So one of the unintended consequences of the Hancock/Richard reforms is AOs, instead of earning less than £100 per apprentice, will now be earning thousands. All this, without any pilots or cost analysis as to whether this will actually improve apprenticeship quality and provide better results than the current system, or any ‘value for money’ evaluation.

Without formal qualifications in place, there will be no government regulator to oversee the AOs’ role in end-testing, at least until the first scandal.

This calendar year will be full of changes for providers, nearly all of them of government’s making, to be ready for the levy in 15 months’ time and Trailblazer standards — if and when frameworks are withdrawn.

For leaders in the sector it will require some second-guessing and smart moves to keep ahead of the game when so many policy decisions, especially regarding the levy and small and medium-sized enterprise contributions have to be made. At the same time we have to ensure our staff are prepared for the changes, our clients informed and our learners motivated as we continue to grow to play our part in the 3m starts target.

Cynics might suggest the reason the levy was introduced was to allow apprenticeships to continue to be funded without Brussels monies, if the referendum takes us out of the EU.

The quality of apprenticeships is an issue never far from the FE headlines. Nida Broughton outlines her view of the possible effect of reforms.

Apprenticeships are an important part of the Government’s productivity plan — a high quality apprenticeship system is seen as vital to help meet the need for new technical and professional skills over the coming years.

While the apprenticeship programme has grown substantially over the past decade, its shortcomings in terms of the quality of training provided have been well-documented. With a new funding system to be put in place, the big question for policymakers in 2016 is how to solve the quality problem.

Research by Professor Alison Wolf has highlighted the low and falling levels of spending over the past decade. By 2013-14, spending per apprenticeship start came to £2,500, down from around £3,000 in 2002-03 before taking into account inflation. In this situation, it is unsurprising that there has been so much concern about the quality of some apprenticeship programmes and the value of the skills that they provide.

With a target for 3m apprenticeship starts this Parliament, the funding question was an urgent one. The new apprenticeships levy promises to bring in the kind of cash that is needed to pay for higher quality schemes. According to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, the levy is expected to bring in £3bn a-year by 2019-20, allowing a cash terms doubling in spending compared to 2010-11.

Problem solved? Not yet. In fact, on quality, there is a danger of slipping into complacency. Just as important as how much funding is available is how that money is spent.

A restrictive approach that only looked at how apprenticeships are delivered, and not the results that they produce, would be unlikely to result in value for money

This is an important question because the problem with the last decade of apprenticeships wasn’t simply poor overall quality. Some types of apprenticeships were very good indeed, providing good quality training that improved career prospects. Research by the Social Market Foundation, and others, show that level three apprenticeships generally provide a greater boost to earnings than level two apprenticeships. And there are substantial differences by occupation and sector, as might be expected given the differing patterns of skill demand across the economy. One apprenticeship is quite definitely not just as good as another. We need to make sure that money is directed towards the areas that make the biggest difference to productivity and good employment opportunities.

Putting employers in charge has been a much trumpeted change under the new system. A new Institute of Apprenticeships, independent and led by employers, is to regulate the quality of apprenticeships. But how is it to deal with the fact that some employers’ apprenticeship programmes will be much better than those of others — both in terms of boosting productivity and improving the career prospects of those enrolled on them? How the new Institute’s remit is drafted and how the Institute chooses to meet its remit will make a big difference to the future success of the apprenticeships programme.

Quality can mean many different things. A limited interpretation could mean the Institute sets some baseline criteria to ensure all apprenticeships meet a required standard, for example, number of training days, programme length and types of qualification that are included. These sorts of requirements may be relatively easy to set and monitor, but such a restrictive approach that only looked at how apprenticeships are delivered, and not the results that they produce, would be unlikely to result in value for money.

A more difficult approach, but one that is vital, is to build in greater rewards and funding for training that genuinely contributes to improved productivity and wage growth. Encouraging progression from level two to level three apprenticeships would be a positive step. Capturing information on how well former apprentices from different programmes go on to do, and publishing that data to help both prospective apprentices and the Institute to decide how funding can best be used would be even better.
It would be a great shame now, if having found a way to make the funds available, we do not invest them wisely in training that will make a genuine contribution to improving skills, pay and productivity.

Catherine Hill reflects on her experience of being awarded an OBE for services to FE and why she is proud to represent the sector on the New Year’s Honour’s list.

My 2016 got off to a fantastic start as I celebrated being awarded an OBE with family and friends.

I was ‘officially’ awarded an OBE for services to FE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list, which was released on December 31.

I was, however, informed by an official letter from the Cabinet Office at the end of November.

The letter was posted to my home address and sat un-opened for a few days.

We were having a new bathroom fitted and the plumber had kindly piled our post up on the shelf.

It was my husband who spotted the envelope marked ‘Urgent and Personal’.

I shared the news with my immediate family when we were all together at Christmas — they were delighted for me and it was quite satisfying to see my adult children speechless.

For the past 30 years I have dedicated my career to the FE sector as I am passionate about helping students succeed, progress to employment and become productive members of the community.

My mantra throughout my career has been simple yet steadfast — raise aspiration and expectation in every student, without exception, to achieve and be successful and never compromise standards.

The core business of our FE work should be to ensure that life changing opportunities are available to our students. If what we are doing isn’t for the benefit of our students then we should be questioning why we are doing it.

I have been a resident of Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire for 37 years, and had the pleasure of being part of some very knowledgeable and dedicated teams at colleges across the North West.

For the past 30 years I have dedicated my career to the FE sector as I am passionate about helping students succeed, progress to employment and become productive members of the community

I previously held positions at Burnley College, Accrington and Rossendale College in the Red Rose County and Bury College in Greater Manchester; all of which were graded as Outstanding by Ofsted during my tenure with them.

I came to Blackpool and The Fylde College in 2005 as head of quality and standards.

In 2009, I was appointed as vice principal and in 2013 I became deputy principal with the responsibility for all the college curriculum areas; working with the heads of schools to drive quality and standards.

During my time with Blackpool and the Fylde College, it has become one of the largest general FE colleges in England and gone from strength to strength.

Over the past 30 years the FE culture has changed considerably.

Contempory FE includes higher education, FE, and commercial work, and is about providing students with skills and attributes to take advantage of the career opportunities available, and for the fact that they may have several different careers over their working life.

Our sector also provides employers with highly skilled individuals to fill the skills needs of existing industries and the new and evolving jobs of the future.

I am humbled that the work that I am so fervently committed to has been recognised and the honour of the OBE gives me great pleasure.

I do feel extremely privileged to have held the roles that I have as there is nothing like witnessing first hand when a student has a light bulb moment. That instant when they find something that they are good at and enjoy and realise they can be successful.
Since the announcement, I have been astounded by the number of well-wishers who have congratulated me.

I would like to thank the teams of people I have worked with across the years, all of whom played a role in me receiving this honour.

The investiture will be at Buckingham Palace sometime over the next seven months.

Until then, its business as usual with our quality remit heavily focused on providing Blackpool and The Fylde College students with the best possible experience to help them secure their dream job.