Teresa Frith compares different visions for the future of apprenticeships.

The Husbands Review of apprenticeships is, at first glance, wife of the Richard Review.

It also takes what, by all measures, is a successful government-supported initiative and seeks to introduce radical change.

It would be a brave person who claimed there is nothing wrong with the current apprenticeship system.

But equally, it would be unfair to say that there are not quite a few babies in this particular bathwater.

It appears the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition are united in their belief apprenticeships are very important, and in their desire for radical change.

The recommendation to call only programmes at level three and above apprenticeships clearly deals with the wish to seek parity with A-levels and higher study, as well as the need to have a system that compares favourably with our European neighbours.

As with the Richard recommendations, doesn’t this just further expand choice for the academically able?”

But, as with the Richard recommendations, doesn’t this just further expand choice for the academically able?

If at 16, a young person is capable of study at level three, they may well look more favourably on a route that takes them straight into employment.

But what of those who are aged 16 to 24 and not ready to study at this level? They will be unable to access an apprenticeship and need to take what could be perceived as an inferior route towards their goal. Will employers view these young people, who need extra time and support to become job-ready, as equally worthy of their efforts?

If we want to smarten up the apprenticeship brand, there needs to be a comprehensive, funded offer that ensures young people have a range of access routes that feed directly into the apprenticeship, without fear of additional stigma.

The development of employer-led bodies that genuinely represent the needs of businesses and young people across a sector would be a fantastic achievement for any administration.

Those of you who have been around a while can probably remember numerous attempts by past ministers to achieve this with limited degrees of success.

Husbands and Richard both agree on a key role for employers in the design of apprenticeships and giving them a strong say in funding.  The basic design would be undertaken by “sector employers” in both visions. Richard favours more “company-specific” input, but there is little to choose between them.

So what about the money? Again both agree that a significant shift is needed here.

Employers need to become embroiled in the funding process in the Richard vision; Husbands favours the employer-led institutions, or similar.

So we can create more than 150,000 funded bodies (Richard) or a bunch of sector-led mini-skills funding agencies, as suitable replacements for the existing single structure — well “single” if we just consider apprenticeship funding, all of which comes via the Skills Funding Agency.

If all £1.5bn is transferred from the existing system to support employers in either vision to deliver the beefed-up apprenticeships, I’m struggling to see how we will fund the level one and two provision that will be needed to help young people to progress to an apprenticeship.

Like the current apprenticeship system, there is much to be applauded in both the Husbands and Richard reviews and maybe, just maybe, we might get what we seek if we take some serious time to test and evaluate what is being suggested, recognise the need for partnership rather than control and try to keep our eyes on the prize, rather than the cash flow.

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager, Association of Colleges

 

Steve Besley offers a Policy Watch perspective on Labour’s proposals on apprenticeships.

We’ve had world class qualifications for the academic system, now we have a call for “a universal gold standard for apprenticeships”.

This would be based on a level three threshold with minimum durations, dedicated time for off the job training and greater employer control over funding and standards.

Details can be found in Labour’s independent skills taskforce’s first report on apprenticeships, published at the start of this year’s party conference.

The Taskforce’s two other reports, due in the autumn, will cover school-work transition and vocational learning in FE, but for the moment the emphasis is on apprenticeships.

Renaming level two training would require considerable work to ensure such a credible route can be put together”

This report supports the growing trend towards direct funding for employers, calling for a large chunk of the current £1.5billion apprenticeship budget to be handed over, but with two conditions.

These are firstly that the funding should be used to develop sector-led workforce development strategies, with apprenticeship targets thrown in for good measure, and secondly, that employers should work with local bodies.

The local join aspect needs a bit more working up and there’s no mention of how 16 to 18 year old provision would fit in, but the message is clear and reinforced in the report’s title – “A something-for-something deal with employers”.

In the long-term, the report’s sympathies lie with the use of tax incentives.

National Insurance relief for small employers, many would argue, would be a better bet than the current youth contract approach.

The report is also keen on employers and employees, rather than ministers, leading on training policy.

This is a tricky area, as it needs some structures for this to happen and the skills system is not short of structural change.

The report’s answer is to give the UK Commission for Employment and Skills a leading role in making the current system work better, rather than attempt to create anything particularly new.

As the architects of the current Employer Ownership Pilots, there is an obvious logic here although the commission may need support.

The model proposed is a hub and spoke one where the UK Commission for Employment and Skills builds the capacity of sector bodies, which in turn work to improve training at a local level.

The third core proposal is the development of a universal gold standard to help re-define just what an apprenticeship is.

There’s been lots of concern recently about the apprenticeship brand and whether it has been tarnished by being allowed to drift into other forms of training.

The report’s answer is to pull in the esteemed Rhineland model of a high-quality, employer-defined, level three qualification and use that as the model to aim for.

Given that so many apprenticeships here at the moment are at level two, this raises the question “what should happen to such training?”

The report states level two training should be renamed as a traineeship or similar and re-designed to ensure all young people who want to progress to higher level training are able to do so.

This may happen in due course, but it would require considerable work to ensure such a credible route can be put together.  The government is already circling this area, partly through its work on 16 to 19 accountability and partly through its review of adult vocational qualifications. However, it remains the next big challenge for policy makers.

Steve Besley, head of policy at Pearson and author of Policy Watch