Traineeships need to have a strong start

The transition from unskilled to skilled could be key to answering the UK’s youth unemployment problem, explains Matthew Hancock

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel is by no means alone in regarding unemployment among young people as “the most pressing European problem”.

However, in Germany the rates of youth unemployment are far lower than most of its European counterparts.

One reason may be that in Germany, where the majority of teenagers either go to university or into an apprenticeship, there are far fewer unskilled young people.

We want to follow Germany’s lead and raise the importance of vocational education. So right from May 2010 onwards, the coalition has invested unprecedented effort and resources in increasing the number and quality of apprenticeships available to help set our young people on the path towards fulfilling careers.

Now, with some 1.3m new jobs having been created in the private sector over the past three years, and the latest surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce and others showing confidence returning to British business, it is no time to relax those efforts.

It is indeed the right time to redouble our efforts to ensure that as many of our young people as possible are well prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that recovery is bringing as it takes hold.

Last month, this was clearly recognised in Chancellor George Osborne’s spending review, which not only protected funding for apprenticeships, but also announced the extension of the new traineeships programme for young people aged up to 24, as well as 16 to 19-year-olds.

Traineeships are designed to give young people the skills and wherewithal to hold down an apprenticeship or a permanent job. For large numbers of our youngsters, that transition has never been easy. The Chancellor’s announcement will mean that more will be able to get practical help in overcoming it.

The key to the success of the scheme will lie in how many training providers and employers come forward”

Employers tell us that many youngsters are keen to get a foot on the employment ladder, but lack the right skills, attitudes and experience to prosper immediately in the world of work.

That is why traineeships have been designed to last up to a maximum of six months and offer young people the opportunity to undertake a substantial work placement and vocational skills training, alongside support to improve the basic skills for employment of English and maths.

Depending on the young person’s needs, a range of other support and flexible training may also be offered to help them develop and progress quickly onto an apprenticeship or into other employment.

All evidence suggests there will be substantial demand for traineeship places from motivated young people.

But the key to the success of the scheme will lie in how many training providers and employers come forward and show themselves willing to work together to offer the right kinds of opportunities.

We also need to get traineeships off to a strong start and that is why only training providers with an Ofsted rating of outstanding or good will be able to deliver them. I recognise this will be frustrating for some providers, but I am confident this approach will give them even greater incentives to improve their existing provision.

The challenge is admittedly great. The updated framework for delivering traineeships has now been published and the first learners will be admitted in August. But despite the tight timescales involved, I am confident we can rise to the challenge.

Clearly, this bodes well for all those young people who ask only to be given a chance to make good and show what they can do.

Matthew Hancock, skills minister

The Government must get this right

The introduction of a training route to support young people without the necessary skills and qualifications to start an apprenticeship is a step forward, says shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden, but it must be implemented properly

While I welcome the fact the Government are introducing traineeships for the 2013/14 academic year, the timescales involved concern me.

Although Matthew Hancock first put his proposals out to consultation in January, it took until May for the policy to be confirmed, initially only for 16 to 18 year olds.

Under mounting pressure, Ministers used last month’s spending review to announce a full rollout for 16 to 24 year olds from August.

I already thought the Government was cutting it fine for colleges and providers to put in place 16 to 18 traineeships, but now providers have little over five weeks to put in place traineeships for this larger age group.

Prior to the spending review, there had been no indication from Ministers this extension was imminent.

In my view, traineeships can and should play a key role in supporting social mobility by giving young people the chance to reach out for those top quality apprenticeships, like those at BAE Systems and Rolls Royce.

The urgent need for traineeships has been highlighted by last month’s data on apprenticeship starts, which showed a 13 per cent fall in 16 to 18 starts, with the trend accelerating in the most recent quarter.

That’s why it’s so crucial traineeships are done properly, and there are several key areas Ministers must focus on. Firstly, traineeships must be underpinned by the key principle of progression. It’s essential traineeships equip young people with the skills needed to bridge the gap into apprenticeships. They should also be designed in close conjunction with the needs of employers, along the lines Doug Richard set out for apprenticeships.

Traineeships must be properly integrated into the employment and skills landscape. Staff at Job Centre Plus and the National Careers Service need to be up to speed and ready to direct young people towards them as an entry route to apprenticeships. The NAS and BIS must ensure they put resources into giving traineeships proper advertising and promotion.

It’s crucial the Government gets traineeships right. Rolled out and delivered properly, they can play a vital role in supporting young people towards the skills both they and our economy need”

There also needs to be clarity about just how traineeships will interact with the benefits system — especially the ‘16 hour rule’ for benefit eligibility.

I was led to believe this was one of the major reasons they weren’t initially rolled out for 19 to 24 year olds. In response to my detailed questions, Ministers are saying traineeships need to be designed in light of existing rules, suggesting colleges and providers will face an uphill battle to design programmes with enough contact time for learners while not falling foul of DWP regulations.

Quality must remain paramount in the new traineeships and the Government must monitor their rollout vigilantly. We cannot have the introduction of traineeships used as a front for the return of the models used in the short duration apprenticeships that were brought to public attention by FE Week in 2011.

While I think it would be wrong to have all traineeships fixed at six months, as this would prevent colleges and providers from having adequate flexibility to respond to local needs, it would be deeply alarming if the vast bulk of traineeships merely turn out to last six weeks.

For many young people, that simply wouldn’t be long enough to pick up the additional skills that are holding them back from apprenticeships.

It’s crucial the Government gets traineeships right. Rolled out and delivered properly, they can play a vital role in supporting young people towards the skills both they and our economy need in an increasingly globalised world where the emerging economies are looking to rapidly boost their own skills base.

That’s why Ministers need to rapidly give colleges and training providers the clarity they need to deliver this programme successfully and to help the countless young people who want to access apprenticeships but currently lack the necessary skills.

Gordon Marsden, shadow minister for further education, skills and regional growth

Special report on traineeships

Download your free copy of the FE Week 16-page special report on traineeships, sponsored by OCR.

Click here to download (20mb)

Introduction

Since traineeships were first hinted at by deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in June last year, the sector has been asking what they will look like, who they will be for and who will be able to provide them.

Now, with just weeks to go until traineeship funding kicks in, some of those questions have been answered.

As FE Week editor Nick Linford explains (page 3), we now know traineeships will combine a high quality work experience placement with maths, English and employability training, will last for anything between six weeks and six months, and will be aimed at unemployed young people who are looking for a job or apprenticeship but lack experience and qualifications.

The scheme was originally announced for 16 to 19-year-olds, but following last month’s spending review, they will also be available for young people aged 19 to 24.

The updated Framework for Delivery announces that 19 to 24-year-olds must have a prior attainment below full level 2, but we await details of the 19 to 24 year-old funding rate for the work placement element from the Skills Funding Agency.

The work placement element is central to the scheme, so on page 4 we hear from colleges on what they think makes for meaningful work experience and how they are drawing on previous experiences to make sure their trainees get the most out of their placements.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock (page 5), points to Germany’s high number of skilled young people and low unemployment, arguing that traineeships, if implemented well, could play a crucial role in solving the UK’s youth unemployment problem.

Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden (page 5) welcomes the arrival of traineeships saying they could “play a key role in supporting social mobility”. However, he warns “quality must remain paramount in the new traineeships and the Government must monitor their rollout vigilantly”.

On page 6 and 7, Kari Hadjivassiliou, a policy expert from the European Social Fund apprenticeship and traineeship helpdesk tells us how the UK’s programme compares to others.

Many of the questions which remain about traineeships will only be answered through implementation, and Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group takes up this theme on page 10.

Colleges, she says, are “impressively ready… at a system level however, more work is needed” to ensure the programme contributes to building a world class skills system.

Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (page 10) appreciates the government’s emphasis on quality, but questions whether Ofsted grades should be the only measure of it. He suggests instead that grade three providers could “have a wider set of benchmarks to provide the evidence that they can deliver a high quality programme”.

Ofsted director of learning and skills, Matthew Coffey, explains what it is that Ofsted will be looking for when it comes to inspecting traineeships (page 11).

He says key features will be how well the programme ensures young people can progress, how those with learning difficulties are catered for and “whether the calibre of apprenticeships has improved as a result of traineeships”.

Progression was a prominent theme when providers gathered at a parliamentary debate organised by FE Week to compare notes on their experience of preparation so far, and we’ve got coverage of that event on pages 12 and 13.

Finally on page 14, there’s a sneak peak of what traineeships might look like, as FE Week speaks to providers, employers and tutors in our report from the OCR traineeship pilot scheme.

We also speak to the most important people involved in traineeships, the trainees themselves, about how they feel the programme is helping to turn their lives around and give them a better chance of getting into an apprenticeship or a job.

Despite the many remaining questions about traineeships, there seems to be a lot of positive feeling in the sector about their potential to help young people.

We hope our special report can help you make the most of your preparation time and give you food for thought as traineeships are implemented.

And don’t forget, as always, you can add your own experiences on the FE Week website and tweet us @FEWeek.


 

Traineeship restrictions for 19 to 24-year-olds will ‘add confusion and complexity’

A revised framework for traineeships has revealed a programme more restrictive for 19 to 24 year-olds than their 16 to 19 counterparts.

The updated Traineeships Framework for Delivery document, published by the government yesterday, says “for 19-24 year olds, the programme will be available only for those who have not yet achieved their first full level two qualification” — equivalent to five GCSEs grade A* to C.

However, the document says “for 16-19 year olds, providers will have flexibility to work with young people who have level two qualifications but not level three.”

The 19 to 24 year-old restriction has come as a surprise to the sector, and Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers told FE Week: “We were pleased that Traineeships were extended to 19 to 24-year-olds but having a different eligibility for different age groups is adding complexity to the system.

“It says in the Framework document providers and employers will have the freedom to work with the individuals within the target group who they feel would benefit most from traineeships.

“Therefore we would have liked the eligibility criteria for both age groups to have been the same. ”

“We really should also avoid any potential for confusion among employers and learners.”

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) spokesperson told FE Week: “BIS and the Department for Education have considered the target groups carefully for the 16-19 and 19-24 age groups. 16-19 year olds with a level two qualification are more likely to need this kind of provision than 19-24 year olds as they will have had less opportunities to gain experience in the labour market.”

She added: “Both departments will keep the traineeships policy under review.”

Traineeships were first proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in June last year for 16 to 24-year-olds. But there was disappointment throughout the sector in May when the first framework showed only those aged below 19 would be included in the programme.

The situation changed again however during this year’s Spending Review when the government decided to include the older age bracket when they are rolled out in August, also to include those with learning difficulty assessmentsup to academic age 25.

Yesterday’s revised framework set out what traineeships hoped to achieve. This included work preparation training such as interview preparation and CV writing, training in English and maths, a high-quality work placement between six weeks and five months and training from providers who were rated outstanding or good by education inspectors Ofsted.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “Young people in Britain deserve the chance to work and get on in life which is why we’re introducing traineeships to help them get on the first rung of the ladder.

“Employers value real experience which is why I’m delighted that more than 100 businesses have come forward. I now want to urge more employers – no matter what size – to sign up to the programme and make the most of the talents of our young people.

“This is vital for our economy to compete in the global race. Traineeships are just one of the ways this government is making sure young people cross the start line.”

Report finds youth employment schemes ‘inadequate’

There are three times as many young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) as there are apprenticeship placements for under-25s, a report revealed today.

The statistics were released in the same week as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced a review of the options available to 16 to 25 year olds in the UK, including his own £1bn Youth Contract scheme launched in November 2011.

Mr Clegg announced the review in a speech at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) president’s dinner on Monday, but made no reference to the government’s traineeship scheme due to begin from August 1, a new framework for which has been announced today.

Kayte Lawton, senior research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research which conducted the report, said: “The Youth Contract has not been an adequate replacement for the Future Jobs Fund and youth unemployment remains a major concern.”

The report showed that one in seven under-25s was classed as NEET, totaling more than a million young people, and called for the government to make employment be the central focus of UK economic policy, targeting an employment rate of 80 per cent.

Ms Lawton added: “For many years, policy has focused on improving individuals’ skills and employability, often with impressive results.

“But if we are to pursue and achieve an employment rate that competes with the best in the world, we will need a more assertive approach to putting job creation and boosting the demand for labour at the centre of our economic and social policies.

“Many other European countries have an employment rate of 80 per cent, so this is not a ‘pie in the sky’ aspiration.”

In his speech, Mr Clegg acknowledged that the “average school leaver” was probably unaware of which government departments and schemes were there to help them.

“Right now it’s too easy for those young people who don’t think university is right for them to get lost in the maze of different employment and skills programmes available and never find the advice, support and options they need,” he said.

The comprehensive government review, he said, would be carried out over the summer by the cabinet office and report to him and the Prime Minister in the autumn.

He added: “What we want is a simpler, easier to use system that lays down a clear route ahead into work for our young people and gives businesses a coherent offer to find the workers they need.”

The Youth Contract programme comprises £1bn worth of delivery over three years, spread across three government departments.

The Department for Work and Pensions fund work experience placements, work incentives and support from Job Centre Plus advisers for unemployed 18 to 24 year olds, while the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills subsidies small businesses taking on 18 to 24 year olds.

A Department for Education spokesperson said their contribution was £126 million for 16 to 17 year olds between 2011 and 2015, “incentivizing organisations to re-engage young people in training or employment.”

Ofsted plan post-16 grade for schools

An extra grade focussing solely on post-16 provision in schools and academies could be introduced to inspection reports, Ofsted has told FE Week.

It is hoped the move may give a more accurate reflection of the quality of a school’s sixth form provision and make it easier for prospective students to make comparisons between their local sixths forms and general FE colleges. 

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “Ofsted is now planning whether to provide a separate grading for a school’s sixth form within its inspection reports.”

She added that the effectiveness of post-16 provision did already inform wider inspection judgements on a school and that Ofsted recognised the importance of the importance of sixth forms in helping students to progress to employment or higher education.

The extra grade would reverse a decision made two years ago to produce a single overall grade for schools.  

Plans for the extra grade were welcomed by the Association of Colleges (AoC).

Joy Mercer, AoC’s director of policy, said separating sixth forms was “the right decision”.

“AoC has been campaigning for a separate grading for schools sixth forms for some time so we are very pleased that Ofsted have listened,” she said.

She added there was “an obvious injustice” in cases the AoC was aware of, where school and academy sixth forms did not retain their students after the age of 17, failed to achieve success rates comparable to a local college, but were part of a school rated “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted.

The Sixth Form Colleges’ Association has also campaigned for this measure.

The Sixth Form Colleges’ Association Chief executive David Igoe said: “We are very pleased Ofsted have taken this step.”

Mr Igoe recently wrote to Her Majesty’s chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw, highlighting that parent and students were currently unable to make “meaningful comparisons” between school sixth forms and colleges.

His letter continued: “We understand the reason for this and the concern the Secretary of State has to reduce bureaucracy.

“However, we think it is important that parents and students can make an informed choice about where to study.

He added that the time was right to rethink the policy.

Today he said: “We are naturally delighted Sir Michael has responded to this request and we hope that further work will continue on developing a single benchmark for all 16-19 institutions.

“It would, after all, defeat the point if a school sixth form grade meant something different to a Sixth Form College grade and to a FE College grade.

“Frustratingly that is the case at present but we remain hopeful that Ofsted remain committed to developing national all institution benchmarks.”

Malcolm Trobe, policy director of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said the organisation had “no issues” with the introduction of a new grade but agreed that colleges and sixth forms were judged on the same criteria.

“There’s a logic to the way we’re doing it at the moment but there’s an equal logic in what they’re talking about,” he said.

“The key thing is they have got to use exactly the same criteria — there has to be a level playing field in terms of the use of data.”

He added: “Inspectors also have to make sure they are spending a significant amount time in the sixth form during a two day visit to the school, to ensure they are taking a good fair look at it.”

 Ms Mercer also called for Ofsted to use the same inspection framework for college and school sixth forms, pointing out that at key stage five, both were monitored and funded in the same way.

 

Governance reform is at risk of looking to the past

Colleges have been told to think critically about the diversity of their governing boards, but what might that mean when set against the backdrop of an encroaching private sector dominated by rich, old, white, able-bodied men, asks Mick Fletcher.

The recently-published report from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on college governance is in many ways a model of how to develop policy.

Unlike many announcements, which appear out of the blue and seem only to reflect the uninformed opinions of a handful of policy wonks, this report shows signs of having involved serious and sustained collaboration, both with the sector and with the Charitiy Commission.

Moreover, at a time when the phrase ‘evidence-based policy’ is falling into disrepute, this publication draws extensively on independent evidence from bodies like Learning and Skills Improvement Service and the Women’s Leadership Network. The BIS team that led the review are to be congratulated.

In practice, employer ownership of skills means rich, old, white, male, able-bodied ownership of skills.”

It may seem churlish therefore to draw attention to a flaw within their work, but it is one that seems substantial.

The review seeks to deal with college governance in isolation from all the other changes occurring in the skills system and to the role of colleges.

The assumption seems to be that the place of colleges is fundamentally unchanged by the turbulence in the external policy environment and the transformation that government, and particularly BIS, is trying to bring about.

A couple of examples will illustrate the problem.

The first concerns the important question of whether college boards reflect the diversity of the actual and potential populations they serve.

Evidence is produced which makes clear they fall short and there are sensible recommendations as to what they might do about it.

However, at the same time as BIS is discussing the composition of college governing bodies it is also seeking to transfer funding from colleges to employers under the guise of ‘employer ownership of skills’.

One thing we can be certain about is that, in practice, employer ownership of skills means rich, old, white, male, able-bodied ownership of skills.

It is possible to see the potential impact of such a transfer in the figures for apprenticeships.

That part of the skills system where employers are most clearly in the driving seat is (and not by co-incidence) that part that least reflects the diversity of the UK population.

This is not to say colleges shouldn’t try to do more to make their boards more representative. They should.

It is, however, to argue that to the extent funding is transferred to employers, the composition of college boards has less and less significance.

The second example arises from the discussion of whether board members should be paid.

The review seems to assume that colleges should maintain their status as exempt charities, and concludes that, as with other charities, payment should be the exception.

This seems to ignore the drift of government policy which is slowly, but surely towards the privatisation of FE.

Exempt charity status seems quite appropriate for a public body that receives grant in aid to support its programmes.

As part of civil society it is right to expect individuals to help lead a college without reward, and for the representativeness of its board to be part of democratic accountability.

However, colleges are now officially part of the private sector and the thrust of BIS policy in particular is towards an open and free market where colleges are simply one set of providers among many who compete with other private bodies to win contracts.

If this really is to be the nature of the sector, then it makes more sense for colleges to be regulated by company law than charity law, and to pay their non-execs as well as companies do.

It also means they need worry less about accountability and select their board members simply with regard to efficiency.

There will still be pragmatic arguments for diversity, but it seems likely that over time the boards of privatised colleges would come to resemble those of private companies.

None of this is to say that within its own terms, the review of governance is a poor piece of work.

It is, as argued at the outset, well-researched, well-argued and thoughtful.

The danger is, however, that unless BIS looks at the overall impact of the changes it is driving through, rather than a narrow focus on colleges, the recommendations may prove to be better-suited to yesterday than tomorrow.

Mick Fletcher is an FE Consultant

Elmfield boss quits over Ofsted’s inadequate grading

The boss of Elmfield Training has quit after Ofsted inspectors gave the firm an inadequate rating having come across “unacceptably low” results.

Ged Syddall resigned after ten years as chief executive, and founder, of the Cheshire-based independent training provider taking “full responsibility” for the results.

He said: “Despite many positive findings the business has received low grades and ultimately as chief executive I take full responsibility for that.

“I have therefore resigned as chief executive with immediate effect.”

However, it is understood Mr Syddall will remain majority shareholder of Elmfield, which currently has a £27.6m contract with the Skills Funding Agency.

Meanwhile, the agency has issued the firm with a Notice of Serious Breach and prohibited it from contracting any new employers while under the notice.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “We are taking tough and urgent action on failing colleges and training providers such as Elmfield that are not up to scratch to protect learners.

“I want to root out poor performance wherever I find it.”

The Ofsted inspection of Elmfield last month today resulted in a downgrading on 2011’s ‘requires improvement’ (grade three, and formerly termed ‘satisfactory’) rating to inadequate (grade four).

“The report says our staff are committed and enthusiastic, and inspectors told me at the end of the inspection they had nothing but admiration for the passion staff have for their work. I cannot thank them enough for that,” said Mr Syddall.

But Ofsted was critical on several areas of service provided by Elmfield, which previously counted supermarket giant Morrisons as its biggest customer. Barclays is among its current client base.

“Success rates in the apprenticeship programmes experienced a considerable decline last year and a high proportion of learners within the Morrisons’ contract did not complete the full framework,” said the report.

“Furthermore, the number of learners who completed their apprenticeship in the planned time fell to an unacceptably low level of 33 per cent.”

It added: “The number of learners who complete their qualification in the expected time continues to decline and has reached an unacceptably low 23 per cent of the retail apprenticeships, which make up the majority of Elmfield’s provision.”

And attendance at key skills sessions fell to a “very low 26 per cent,” said the report, which added: “Elmfield has been slow in implementing the delivery of functional skills and does not have sufficient numbers of staff with the appropriate qualifications in the teaching of functional skills.”

However, the report also said the 11,371-learner provider had experienced “changes at the board level within Morrisons, tough trading conditions in the retail sector, long periods of lockdown preventing activity other than trading taking place, intense media scrutiny and breakdown of relationships, combined with lack of commitment from some stores.” The report claimed these “all contributed to this unsatisfactory position”.

A spokesperson for Elmfield, which has 413 staff, said: “We are obviously disappointed by the grades in the report, but we think the inspection process itself was fair.

“We accept that in the current Ofsted framework it is almost inevitable for a provider with inadequate outcomes for learners to be given inadequate grades for leadership and management and overall effectiveness as well.”

She added: “Although the report is critical of the overall success rates achieved by learners in 2011/12, inspectors recognised that a high proportion of learners — 83 per cent — succeeded in the vocational element of their training and that achievement rates improved markedly this year, to 86 per cent.

“As far as teaching and learning are concerned, the report says that most teaching and assessment sessions are good, learners develop good vocational skills and the programmes we have started in the last two years are well planned and managed.

“We accept the recommendations for improvement in the report and will focus on tackling the success factors identified initially in our self-assessment report and by Ofsted.

“We continue to work closely with the Skills Funding Agency, our employer partners and most importantly our learners to build on the strong partnerships built up in the last two years.”

Ofsted inspectors will return to Elmfield in the autumn to see if it has improved.

Mr Hancock said: “A more rigorous and responsive skills system is crucial to our future economic success and our drive to tackle youth unemployment.

“Poor training undermines social mobility and holds back people who want to get on in life.”