David Phillips explains why reform is needed to ensure trainees learn a broader set of skills to suit businesses’ needs.

Presented with the top line figures, most people would assume the apprenticeship programme is in fair shape and they would be right.

In the last academic year, there were around 520,000 apprenticeship starts, more than double the number two years ago.

The programme is also achieving a healthy gender balance among those signing up and the government has now committed to increase its budget from £715m to £764m over the next year.

But on closer inspection, while it is difficult to conclude the programme is broken, it still might need some fixing if it is to deliver the expectations heaped on it.

If the programme is divided into its constituent parts of learners, employers, training providers and government, it is clear it is not yet delivering for business in some major areas.

In the recent Pearson/CBI skills survey, businesses told us they felt marginalised and wanted a greater ownership over the programme. Indeed, 39 per cent of employers thought having the apprenticeship grant paid directly to them would increase participation in the programme.

This was the second most popular response — after ensuring the qualifications design was more relevant to business need.

So there is certainly merit in pursuing this idea, but we need to make sure any new funding mechanism, announced as a result of the current consultation on apprenticeship funding, is easy to administer and appealing to every size of business.

A pilot could help test how well new mechanisms deliver these desired outcomes.

The Pearson/CBI survey also found the programme was not delivering what is wanted by all sizes of employers.

Only 23 per cent of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that responded are currently taking on apprentices.

This compares to nine in 10 companies with 5,000 or more employees. On a more positive note, the survey found training providers are becoming more responsive to business needs and on almost every point researched, employers are becoming more satisfied with the training delivered by external providers.

We need to make sure any change embraces and builds on the relationship between provider and employer.

In relation to the government, the programme is not doing as much as it could be in addressing the stubbornly high levels of youth unemployment. Some people could be alarmed to learn that despite the overall rise in participation in the programme, the number of under-19 starters fell in the last academic year, while those starting who were aged 25 or over went up by around 50,000.

This has resulted in only 25 per cent of all starters being 19 years old or under.

In addition, the government has publicly set itself the goal of wanting to play a more strategic role in supporting the growth industries of the economy and ensuring it has the right skilled labour force to drive growth.

More than half (52 per cent) of all apprenticeships that started in the last academic year were in the business administration or retail sector.

While these sectors are crucial to the economy, more could be done to encourage a greater number of starts in other areas key to future growth, including life sciences and information technology, as highlighted in the government’s Industrial Strategy.

At present, information technology has only a fifth of the starters of the retail sector, with numbers actually declining last year.

Lastly, we need to ensure the programme is delivering for learners.

This means the skills and experiences they accrue during their apprenticeship must lead to rewarding and valuable careers.

To do this we need to create better mechanisms that capture an apprentice’s experiences and the value gained from doing an apprenticeship.

This data could help determine the effectiveness of different programmes, which would in turn encourage others to consider an apprenticeship.

Whatever system is put in place, as a result of the current consultation on apprenticeship funding, it must incentivise some behaviours and discourage others.

It must address the imbalances which currently exist, without devaluing the brand which has been painstakingly built up so far.

It must not slow the momentum of a programme which is delivering valuable skills to over half a million new starters each year.

It also needs to protect the providers and courses so many businesses value.

In short, it should not try to remake a programme which in many respects is not broken, but at the same time put in place the mechanisms to fix it. While this will not be an easy task, the importance of getting it right could not be greater.

David Phillips, managing director of Pearson Work Based Learning
and Colleges

Traineeships are the government’s latest weapon in the fight against youth unemployment, but, asks Mike Hopkins, what hope do trainees really have of a job in the end and is the free labour offer, that is inherent to the programme, open to abuse?

There appears to have been some frustration at a slow uptake on traineeships in colleges and a belief the sector is therefore missing an opportunity.

But Middlesbrough College is delivering traineeships as part of the Employer Ownership Pilot.

Trainees are benefitting and the relationship with the employer is excellent.

But I recognise the sector does have some well-founded concerns. So what are these?

I’m worried some employers may use and abuse traineeships.

It’s true traineeships provide another entry point into work.

However, how many trainees will enter into a traineeship with high expectations, when in reality there may be little scope for employment at the end of it?

When does it become more about the provider hoovering additional funds, than a genuine route to prosperous and sustainable employment?

How much more disillusioned might trainees be if they arrive at the end a traineeship with nowhere to go?

Traineeships allow employers to work trainees without paying them and this may provide a mechanism employers implement as an alternative to apprenticeships or paid employment, or as a substitute for employment.

So, how do we protect our young people from exploitation?

While any initiative to develop opportunities for work experience is to be applauded and is doubtless well-intentioned, I would sound a note of caution.

Many providers, including colleges, have invested heavily in securing, for example, work experience for learners.

However, to use an old metaphor, there are ‘only so many times we can go back to the same well’.

There is a presumption that employers are ready and able to be the agents of social change that government wills them to be.

But I am concerned about the weight of expectation and the capacity of employers in the current economic climate to engage with traineeships.

We know there is a fine line between unpaid work experience, that offers skill development, and exploitation”

Employers are being urged to invest more in apprentices, but there is a danger of traineeships becoming an ‘instead of’ rather than an ‘as well as’ option.

That said, there are progressive employers engaging providers in the development of schemes.

They should be commended and perhaps better recognised or rewarded for this.

Many employers lay claim to corporate social responsibility, but how many are actively rewarded? How does and should government incentivise employers around this?

For example, some would argue the motivation to pursue and secure Investors in People, ISO 9001 is as much about the ‘badge’ and having it as part of the corporate uniform, so you can tick a box in a pre-qualification questionnaire. as part of a competitive tendering exercise.

Would it be a bad thing if employers perceived that being able to tick another box around their commitment to work experience, traineeships, apprenticeships was a pre-requisite in competitive tender situations?

Traineeships have the potential to add to boost post-16 skills development, if they are well-funded and credible.

But the macro-economic ambition of government to rebalance the economy and return to somewhere near full, prosperous and sustainable employment, is just as important.

It’s not the fault of young people that the economy is flat and faltering.

For colleges, we know there is a fine line between unpaid work experience, that offers skill development, and exploitation.

Many young people now find themselves in a state of economic duress and may feel compelled to accept such hours and working conditions.

It’s important then that the sector uses the key principles of high quality and inclusion when judging the merits of different initiatives.

Mike Hopkins, chief executive of Middlesbrough/Gateshead College Federation.

David Harbourne agrees with much of what has been recommended in the Labour skills taskforce review, but recommends a more flexible approach to policy.

There’s something vaguely familiar about the apprenticeship reforms proposed by Labour’s skills taskforce — also known as the Husbands Review.

As it happens, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Take the idea that the word apprenticeship should be reserved for programmes at level three and above, with level two programmes renamed as traineeships.

Modern apprenticeships were launched in the early 1990s as level three programmes, when they were expected to compete with A-levels.

Meanwhile, the Youth Training Scheme (YTS) gave unemployed young people work experience — and not much else.

Sir Ron Dearing said YTS should be reformed, using modern apprenticeships as the template. He came up with a level two framework, which he called National Traineeships.

The name didn’t last. The government said it was confusing to have two names for apparently similar programmes.

Modern apprenticeships became advanced apprenticeships, and national traineeships became apprenticeships.

What goes around, comes around.

The Husbands Review says level two programmes should be called traineeships. This may actually be a good idea — it’s just not new.

Next, the review says apprenticeships should last at least two years.

One of the big innovations introduced with modern apprenticeships was the abolition of time serving, which had been a key feature of apprenticeships for centuries.

The reason was simple — people learn at different speeds.

If someone has a real aptitude for a job and becomes fully competent in 18 months, why make them wait another six months before giving them a certificate?

I’m not convinced we need rigid rules like this.

Then there’s compulsory off-the-job training.

The Husbands Review says apprenticeships should include a day of off-the-job training every week. Allowing for five weeks of holiday each year, this means 94 days of compulsory off-the-job training in two years.

That’s another rigid requirement — more than some sectors need and more than some employers could offer.

The review also states: “Training standards should be set at sector level by institutions that genuinely represent the interests of employers and young people.”

It recommends doing this through strengthening sector skills councils, although there could be a role for other sector bodies.

The central criticism of sector skills councils is that while some are very good, others are not seen as sufficiently representative of employers, particularly small employers.

The same criticism was levelled at industry training organisations, which led to the creation of national training organisations, which were replaced by … sector skills councils.

The problem here is reach. When I was working for the Hospitality Training Foundation, we aimed to involve around 300 businesses in qualification and apprenticeship design, taking account of sub-sectors, small, medium and large business, the public sector and regional differences.

However, there are more than a quarter of a million hotels, cafes, restaurants, pubs and fast-food outlets in the hospitality industry.

Three hundred might be a good cross-section, but it excludes 249,700 businesses, any one of which might tell the Husbands Review — or Doug Richard, for that matter — “I wasn’t consulted”.

Today, the task falls to People 1st (an excellent sector skills council, by the way).

It can’t reach every hospitality business, but if it’s given more resources it’ll be able to reach more than it does today.

So I support the Husbands Review on this. Invest in sector skills councils and help them do an even better job than they do today.

But don’t expect critics to be silenced. There will always be employers who complain that they weren’t consulted. It’s human nature and nothing’s going to change that.

David Harbourne, director of policy and research, the Edge Foundation

Ruth Mathias raises concern about the government decision, which was implemented earlier this month, to remove the requirement for FE lecturers to have teaching qualifications.

The decision to remove the requirement for teaching qualifications for FE lecturers mean candidates with no prior teacher training, or professional teaching qualifications, could now secure lecturing roles in FE colleges.

Widespread concern over the negative impact this could have on the quality of teaching and professionalism in FE colleges — which will in turn affect students, representatives from the Institute for Learning, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students — has put pressure on the government to reverse the decision.

The fall in top grades for the second year running, following the recent A-level results, marks a new trend of falling top level grades.

This trend surely highlights the need for measures to be taken to improve the standard of teaching, rather than legislation that could lower standards.

Many senior figures agree with this viewpoint across FE.

We believe very strongly in maintaining a high standard of teaching across FE“

Theresa Ann Drowley OBE, chief executive of Redbridge College, said: “The removal of teacher qualifications will be detrimental to the profession and to learners in colleges.

“Teachers who go through the process of gaining teaching qualifications provide reassurance regarding their ability to write and research. This college will continue to require teaching qualifications in our efforts to move the college forward and deliver a quality process.”

Jayne Stigger, head of maths and science at Nescot College [North East Surrey College of Technology], said: “Qualified teaching staff actively enable the development of the whole student, motivating and applying specialist techniques to differentiate learning to suit the student.  The removal of the need for qualified staff will actively work towards lowering the standards that FE professionals have worked tirelessly to improve”

It’s feared the removal of the requirement for FE lecturers to have teaching qualifications could negate the positive impact of the 2012 Ofsted changes within the FE sector.

Coming into effect on September 1, last year, these changes were implemented to provide greater focus on the quality of teaching and learning in colleges.

More time is now spent observing lessons and a more robust inspection criteria was supposed to support head teachers and principals in their work to provide the best possible education for pupils and learners.

Morgan Hunt is proud to be one of the top recruitment agencies in the UK, offering specialist recruitment services to a wide range of clients.

We will not be changing our criteria in regards to recruiting FE lecturers, as we think this would undermine our efforts to supply high calibre candidates to FE clients, as Sue Cooper, director of education at Morgan Hunt, explained.

She said: “There is a considerable amount of government investment in initiatives to reduce the number of Neet (not in employment, education or training) young people and increase their employability.

“This latest decision by the government to remove the teacher qualifications requirement for lecturers in the FE sector seems contradictory to that mission. We believe very strongly in maintaining a high standard of teaching across FE.”

We will therefore still require a teaching qualification from all candidates.

 Ruth Mathias, web editor of Morgan Hunt Education recruitment agency

Former House of Commons EducationSelect Committee specialist  Ben Nicholls is head of policy and communications at London’s Newham College. He writes exclusively for FE Week every month.

A little while ago, an acquaintance of mine — a rather dapper management consultant — confessed that he’d been asked to change the way he dressed in the workplace.

He’d been at a well-regarded media organisation, and, trying to impress, turned up in a sharp suit, crisp shirt, polished shoes — the works.

After a few days, colleagues gently suggested he was dressing “too smartly”.

Clearly, trainers, hoodies and jeans were the order of the day — his traditional tailoring was apparently making people feel tense and unproductive.

The days when everyone wore suits, uniforms or overalls to work are firmly over.

Organisations now operate every dress code imaginable, from the trendy office where my consultant chum got reprimanded to a city law firm which reportedly warned short-skirted women (“generally looking like we’re going clubbing instead of to the office”) to prepare for “uncomfortable discussions” with HR.

And it seems as if schools and colleges are just as varied too.

Perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often“

In the four places I was educated (and that itself was some time ago), the dress codes varied from prescription grey suit and school tie, through to whatever we wanted.

And, while it might be assumed that young people preferred the latter, it doesn’t seem quite that simple.

At that school — a huge public elementary in East Coast USA — there was real pressure around clothes to constantly be as trendy and up-to-date as your peers, many of whom came from wildly differing economic backgrounds.

There were times when I longed for the red jumpers and black trousers of my primary school back across the pond, and I suspect my parents felt the same.

And in colleges like those most of us work in, dress codes are rare.

Our students wear whatever they want, and certainly at Newham this contributes to a sense of youthfulness and diversity across the campuses.

Many of our students have, of course, had less than optimal experiences of previous education, and sometimes this is because they weren’t sufficiently treated like adults – something I’ve advocated in this column before, and which I know many colleagues across the country feel strongly about, too.

Not wearing uniform can be a really important way of nurturing that independence, maturity and self-responsibility.

But there’s another argument which suggests that a lack of any dress code achieves completely the opposite.

Adults, in reality, have to conform to all sorts of dress codes, whether they’re required for practical reasons — hairnets for caterers, branded t-shirts for retail staff — or for vaguer notions of officewear, as in the media and law firms mentioned earlier.

There are rules and guidelines for parties, for weddings, for travel, for meetings, and for any number of religious and cultural settings.

Given that employability skills and preparation for later life are such an important part of colleges’ teaching, there’s a real argument that some form of ‘business casual’ dress code in college could work to students’ advantage when it comes to interview time — and at the same time it could, perhaps, make them feel more trusted and respected than a ‘free-for-all’ dress policy.

Of course, many learners already wear uniform of one sort or another, engineers, for example, and construction trainees, and extending that idea might foster a sense of fairness across a college community.

Such discussions are active and alive at Newham College, and thoughts or opinions from other institutions would be really welcome.

The discussions thrive elsewhere, too, and there is research suggesting that, in fact, the impact of wearing uniform is more positive on achievement in older students than younger.

But similarly, much research is inconclusive, including that examining the influence of adults’ dress on workplace productivity.

As someone who hates wearing a tie, I have my own views on that, but perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often.

Unless, of course, we’re planning to work for a large media firm, in which case crack out the Converse.