The government announced its first measures aimed at helping it achieve the target of 3m apprenticeship starts by the end of this Parliament. David Harbourne assesses the measures, including the provision for legal protection of the ‘apprenticeship’ term.

When the government announced that the word ‘apprenticeship’ is to be legally protected, I had an odd sense of déjà vu.

The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 introduced a raft of definitions, ranging from ‘apprenticeship agreement’ to ‘recognised Welsh framework’. Under the Act, apprentices had to be employed, which put paid to programme-led apprenticeships.

That was the first legal definition of apprenticeship in this country in nearly 200 years. Before that, there had been a Statute of Artificers, passed during the reign of Elizabeth I — but it was abolished in 1805, and not replaced until 2009.

We don’t yet know what the new definition will be, but Skills Minister Nick Boles has said the Enterprise Bill will give the government powers to ‘take action when the term is misused to promote low quality courses’.

And that begs the question: what is a low quality course, in the context of an apprenticeship?

Previously, the government has equated poor quality with short duration — anything less than a year can’t be considered good enough. I always had my doubts about that.

Previously, the government has equated poor quality with short duration. Anything less than a year can’t be considered good enough. I always had my doubts about that

 When we first developed Modern Apprenticeships, the idea was to tailor the apprenticeship to the needs and abilities of the individual. Some people learn quicker than others. If full competency can be reached in 11 months, why make someone wait the extra month before they can claim to be qualified?

Next, we bump into concepts such as restrictive and expansive apprenticeships. Professors Alison Fuller and Lorna Unwin from the Institute of Education have been talking about this for some time.

At the risk of over-simplifying their ideas, expansive apprenticeships prepare people for careers in a chosen occupational field, whereas restrictive apprenticeships prepare them for a narrowly-defined job role.

On this basis, almost all of Switzerland’s apprenticeships can be described as expansive. I visited a Unilever factory which makes powdered foods. Their apprentices learn by doing a variety of jobs in different parts of the factory, but they pick up additional skills and knowledge by attending off-job courses.

That sets them in good stead for their future careers, not just to work on a production line.

Alison and Lorna would argue that too many of England’s apprenticeships are restrictive, because they are based on the minimum skillset needed to do a particular job, and neglect the wider skills and experience offered to Swiss apprentices.

Then there’s the question of training versus assessment. The argument goes that in some cases, public funding pays for assessment, not training.

There are definitely benefits from assessing and accrediting skills, but critics believe we should focus on training people who are new to their jobs, not on accrediting the skills of people who have already been in work for some time.

In the end, you get what you’re willing to pay for. Here in England, there is a long tradition of co-investment in some sectors.

Engineering is a prime example, where both the state and the employer contribute towards apprenticeship training and assessment costs. In other sectors, external apprenticeship costs have been entirely state-funded, though employers do of course still pay apprentices’ wages and other employment costs.

Squaring all of these circles isn’t going to be easy. I don’t think the Trailblazers provide all the answers. I doubt a new statutory definition of apprenticeships will either, though I live in hope.

But saddled with a target of 3m apprenticeship starts, maybe the real question is this: will the government simply pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap? I seriously hope not.

Skills Minister Nick Boles told MPs this month the Dutch system of vocational education and training might be a model for England. Jeroen Onstenk outlines the Dutch system and considers whether Mr Boles might be onto something.

Vocational education and training (Vet) in the Netherlands is primarily part of the education system, rather than the labour system.

There is an elaborated system of technical and vocational education, with two pathways (apprenticeship and school-based), both including (in different proportions) school-based as well as work-based learning.

There were two separate Vet systems — a school-based system and an apprenticeship system — up until 1996, at which point various vocational learning paths and school types (the apprenticeship system and school-based vocational education; initial and adult vocational education) were integrated.

In the Dutch Vet system, hybrid qualifications are nowadays a broad and accepted part of the educational system. Highest level Vet qualification (level four) gives right of entrance to higher professional education (HPE), and, after successful completion of at least one year in HPE, also to university.

The Vet system is under constant pressure to respond to changing societal and economical demands.

Vocational education is increasingly regarded as the beginning of a vocational learning career, rather than as the culmination of skills acquisition.

During working life, workers will have to attend further training and change jobs on a number of occasions. This means that vocational education must afford a broad basis including technical, organisational and communicative as well as learning skills.

The system has been thoroughly restructured several times in the last 20 years. New courses and new contents as well as new didactics for vocational schools and apprenticeship have been implemented to respond better to the needs of a changing labour market.

The aim was to introduce, from 2005, a well functioning, clear and transparent qualification structure for senior secondary vocational education, which offers the possibilities of constant renewal and is an effective instrument for both the labour market and the educational field.

As it turned out, it took to 2012 before a new system was accepted. By then, the concept of competence had become so disputed that it was discarded by the ministry.

One important lesson is that Vet can become a recognised part of the education system as a whole

However, the main characteristics of the new system (focus on occupational tasks; integration of knowledge and skills; broad qualification profiles) were kept intact.

Although the Vet system is mainly funded by the government, employers are on at least two levels actively engaged in the Vet system — defining qualifications/setting standards and delivering training and learning opportunities (internship and apprenticeship).

Regional Vet colleges are developing from what could be called industrial training centres into innovative learning centres, in order to prepare students better for working life as well as lifelong learning and citizenship.

One important lesson is that Vet can become a recognised part of the education system as a whole. Equality of esteem can be promoted by opening up educational career possibilities (into higher education) as well as opening up realistic labour market opportunities.

There are some lessons to be learned from the qualifications restructure: reducing complexity; clustering professions (‘broad occupational profiles’); developing vocational tracks, organising and implementing successful hybrid qualifications.

Also lessons could be learned about the educational opportunities and the role of schools in Vet. Vocational pedagogy is broader than just preparing for specific jobs but is aiming for broad development with regard to vocational competence, citizenship and learning competency.

Although certainly not without difficulties or always successful, engagement of companies in such a broad aiming Vet and cooperation with schools in delivering high quality vocational education turns out to be possible.

By this cooperation and networking schools can compensate for lack of specialist expertise in vocational subjects.

Click here for an expert piece on comparison of the English Vet system with that of the Netherlands by City & Guilds UK managing director Kirstie Donnelly

The new common inspection framework handbooks have been published. Phil Hatton takes a closer look at what FE should be taking note of.

So, with all the hype associated with the launch of the new CIF covering all Ofsted inspection remits, what will be the difference for FE?

Looking at the wording that should guide inspector judgements, very little in terms of what is looked at has changed.

Safeguarding and the emphasis on the Prevent strategy had already been introduced on some inspections prior to becoming a requirement on July 1, as had the GCSE resit emphasis on English and maths.

The biggest change in methodology will be the move away from grading individual sector subject areas, to a grade for each type of provision, such as 16 to 19 study programmes, adult learning programmes, apprenticeships, traineeships, provision for high-needs learners (a new term for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities) and full-time provision for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Such judgement grades are already given at the back of current reports in the form of a grid table, so these are in reality being given more prominence as a separate report section.

These judgement grades for each type of provision will incorporate (as they do now) outcomes for learners, the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and the effectiveness of leadership and management, but with an additional judgement around the personal development, behaviour and welfare of learners (PDBW will be a new acronym soon).

Although it sounds ‘different’, some of the judgements required for the latter category have been in previous inspection frameworks. It will include taking pride in their work and becoming self-confident and assured.

Work-related learning, including external work experience, is a key part and needs to be ‘purposeful’.

Next comes development of personal, social and employability skills, including English, maths and ICT skills. This will be the real grade judgement deal breaker, especially where a college is in an area where English and maths has low school pass rates so GCSEs must be retaken (and I know I bang on about it, but the national averages in schools are just too low).

Then comes some slightly sloppy wording around ‘achieving their core learning aims, specific units of their main vocational qualifications and relevant additional qualifications that enhance their learning, along with standards of work’ (taken from what is traditionally outcomes and probably better placed there if judgements are to be clear on inspection and in self-assessment).

Work-related learning, including external work experience, is a key part and needs to be ‘purposeful’

New, but with prominence by the Further Education Funding Council 20 years ago, is ‘learners’ use of the information they receive on the full range of relevant career pathways’ (again, as colleges have been very good at this the relevance to me is ‘are schools to be judged as stringently as colleges no doubt will be?’).

Very prominent in inspection will be how well learners know how to protect themselves from the risks associated with radicalisation, extremism, forms of abuse, grooming and bullying, including through the use of the internet (I would encourage all colleges to really rethink their approach to educating learners around safe use of the internet, it became a ‘hot topic’ for particular inspectors over the last few months, featuring heavily in some reports).

A new slant, taken from schools, is how programmes allow all learners to explore personal, social and ethical issues and take part in life in wider society and in Britain. And yes, ‘Every Child Matters’ has resurfaced just as many have been dropping it with ‘how well learners know how to keep themselves fit and healthy, both physically and emotionally’.

PDBW will also include attendance and punctually, including participation in any distance learning activities (online learning and the use of virtual learning environments gaining prominence and again will need to be more explicitly addressed in self-assessment reporting).

Perhaps the most school orientated of all are ‘compliance with any guidelines for behaviour and conduct’. The single most frequent comment I get from younger college learners is how they respect their teachers because they treat them like adults. Hopefully colleges will score highly here.

The new aims and role of the Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER) has become clearer since a consultation event this month, as Andrew Morris explains.

The new Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER), funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was the focus of attention at a major gathering of college leaders and researchers this month.

Directed by Professor Sandra McNally of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, the new research centre will be developing much needed evidence aimed at improving the delivery of vocational programmes and involvement of employers. A clearer picture of routes to employment and better information about their value should be the result.

The programme for the new centre was set out and discussed at the latest workshop of the Learning & Skills Research Network.

In an encouraging sign for the sector, feedback from consultation events such as this will help shape the centre’s programme. Close links with the Education and Training Foundation are also planned as it develops the ideas for a vocational education and training (Vet) centre set out by the McLoughlin Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning (Cavtl).

With its wider brief as a hub for practice development and innovation the Cavtl Centre will complement the data-driven research of the BIS centre. By connecting quantitative research with the development of practice the prospects of an evidence-based vocational education system look a little brighter today.

The prospects of an evidence-based vocational education system look a little brighter today

A top priority for the LSE-based research centre is to develop a robust descriptive overview of the system. The actual experience of young people and the value of the various routes they take needs to be analysed; it’s good to hear the CVER will tackle this.

By simply describing the Vet system systematically an important first step will have been taken. The absence of common language and concepts between employers, awarding bodies, colleges and government — let alone students and parents — has been a real block on progress, a point emphasised strongly at the LSRN workshop.

The bread and butter work of the new centre will be working with large datasets, run as it is by a consortium of economists from four institutions, led by the LSE. By linking data together it will explore the value of vocational options, participation decisions, the quantity and quality of provision and influences on employer demand.

At last, important data about student journeys, qualifications, progression and employment, currently sitting in separate silos will begin to be connected up, throwing light on what is actually happening. But as researchers at the workshop pointed out: getting hold of it, cleaning it up and matching up records will be no easy task.

The economic value of vocational learning is not all that motivates students, as college leader were quick to point out at the workshop. Young people can be passionate as well as judicious in the way they make their choices.

Qualifications alone fail to capture all aspects of success in learning. Even data about levels can be misleading where different types of learner are lumped together inappropriately. At levels one and two for example some may be catching up after a poor time at school, others starting afresh after graduation.

Research centres serving the sector have come and gone — remember the Learning & Skills Research Centre and the Wider Benefits of Learning? What is vital is that this one not only crunches the numbers but also engages with the practice, policy and business communities to ensure that its work gets multiplied by others and its findings are taken on board.

It is refreshing to see the CVER addressing this at the outset. It will be producing documentation for the large datasets for the wider research community to use.

By engaging practitioners in developing the agenda and interpreting results it is more likely that people will sit up and take notice of the findings further down the line. And that’s what counts in the end if research is to make a difference.