The CBI welcomes the Richard Review on apprenticeships, says Neil Carberry. But any shift  to a new system will have to be carefully managed so that it does not undermine existing provision and opportunities

One of the constant cries from the FE sector is that it is too often forgotten by ministers who invest political capital in primary and secondary education at the expense of skills; and that when they do engage, it often brings sudden, wild shifts in policy.

Yet apprenticeships are the most stable, historic and successful forms of education that we have.

Dating back to the Middle Ages, they were developed by the ancient guilds as a contract between master craftsmen and workers, who would get formal training, food and lodging, in exchange for their labour.

Most apprentices would then become master craftsmen themselves and would train the next generation.

Yet as Doug Richard sets out in his review, this simple structure has become far too complex, with rules and regulations that fail to meet the needs of either learners or businesses.

He is absolutely right when he says that there is “universal agreement that apprenticeships are a good thing”. He is also right when he says that true apprenticeships must be employer-led and meet tough industry standards.

There are many excellent schemes that are many times oversubscribed, as with the outstanding, long-established courses at Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and BT. These provide exactly the sort of high-level skills and hard workplace experience that drive growth.

But apprenticeships must be about the wider economy too — higher skills in retail or logistics are just as important.

The development of a higher apprenticeship programme for accountancy over the past couple of years, for instance, highlights this potential and offers a great route to a professional career.

But we should be honest that this is far from being universally the case. So we welcome Richard’s stark challenge for government:  to urgently overhaul the system so that it properly values technical education.

The world’s economy is changing and apprenticeships need to keep pace. As the economy rebalances towards high-value exports and a more flexible, mobile labour market, our training system must shift to meet these needs.

But shifting to a new system will have to be carefully managed so that it does not undermine existing provision and opportunities.

And we would caution against dismissing the value of shorter courses, based on teaching level 2 skills — these can be rigorous and really meet employers’ needs.

The road to apprenticeships does not simply start at 16”

Overall businesses will welcome the central thrust of Richard’s recommendations.

First, it puts employers in the driving seat. They must have a greater say in both course design and targeting funding at training that matches their needs and future job opportunities.

Second, layers of red tape and confusing funding streams need to be swept away. They put off many firms taking on apprentices — particularly small and medium-sized businesses.

And third, the proposed skills tax credit to take on apprentices could finally make the employer, not government, the decision-maker in apprenticeship design.

But a broader point needs to be made. The road to apprenticeships does not simply start at 16 — the aptitudes and attitudes must be inbuilt from much earlier.

That’s why the CBI is calling for a radical overall from nursery onwards. We want clear routes into technical education at an earlier age and a shift away from public exams at 16.

And we want tougher, new vocational A levels at 18 and for all students to study English and maths throughout school and college.

This is a key moment for government and businesses to step up to the plate — and we are ready to play our part.

Neil Carberry is education and skills director at the Confederation of British Industry

There is much to welcome in the Richard Review (although paper exams should stay and employers should not design new qualifications on their own), says Sally Hunt of the University and Colleges Union

The Richard Review’s emphasis on an apprenticeship being a form of education to be held in high regard and its efforts to define a modern apprenticeship must be applauded.

The complete failings of the Work Programme (described by David Cameron as the biggest and boldest programme since the Great Depression) reinforced how important it is to ensure high-quality training.

We are pleased the review recognises the innovative work already being done by colleges with employers, and agree there needs to be a clearer definition of exactly what constitutes an apprenticeship with industry-specific targets for young people to achieve.

We also welcome the recognition that there are three parties to an apprenticeship — the apprentice, the employer and government.

It is helpful that Richard makes the point that the apprentice should be the key beneficiary. With that in mind, we would have liked a commitment that apprentices be more involved in determining vital elements such as curriculum, delivery and assessment. We have heard plenty from the employers and government over the years; it would be good to hear from the learners.

We have long called for stronger incentives for employers and believe that the review’s proposal for government funding for apprenticeships to be routed through National Insurance or tax system would get more on board.

We need firmer action to ensure employers actually do something with the large amounts of public money they are given. There needs to be a carrot and stick approach: the carrot is the funding that they receive . . . the stick is legislation to make sure that money is used for training. Put simply, if they don’t spend the money as they should, then it goes to those employers that will.

If they don’t spend the money as they should, then it goes to those employers that will”

We do not believe employers should be designing qualifications alone. The job should be led by the experts. The employers’ views are, of course important, but designing qualifications is not a simple task.

Similarly, we do not see competition as an effective approach to the design of new qualifications, when we have existing qualifications bodies set up to do that very job.

Introducing such a system is taking the idea of the market too far for even the most ardent free marketeer. It has the potential to damage fatally the qualification infrastructure with unsuccessful awarding bodies losing their expertise and potentially withdrawing from the market.

We do agree with some of the elements around assessment. Assessors should be external and neutral, for instance, although we cannot sanction the complete removal of paper exams. The understanding of the theory needs to be demonstrated as well as acquiring the skills.

As Richard identifies, off-site learning adds real value and should be reflected in assessment. There is also the issue of fees for over-24s. More apprenticeships are a good thing but, as well as being of high quality, they must be accessible to all.

Asking those aged 24 or more to pay up to £4,000 a year to work as an apprentice is likely to act as a deterrent. It also reneges on the tripartite system of sharing the cost that Richard identifies as the right way to fund apprenticeships.

Finally, the challenge will be to ensure that the review’s call to raise quality also addresses the pay and exploitation of some young apprentices. Currently one in five does not receive the statutory minimum wage and some find themselves on sub-standard schemes where employers simply use them as a cheap source of labour. This must be stamped out.

Sally Hunt is general secretary of the
University and Colleges Union

Shadow education minister Karen Buck took some flak at the AoC annual conference for suggesting colleges may not be ready for direct enrolment at age 14. Here she explains why there is a risk of a two-tier system

That FE colleges can play a positive, indeed transformational role in the education of 14 to 16-year -olds is not in doubt. FE has a critical part to play if we are to introduce genuine flexibility into education at 14-plus; a flexibility that enables students to achieve through paths other  than the traditional school environment and/or academic curriculum (and, indeed, back again).

Until now, the most common form of full-time college provision for this age group has been for pupils unlikely to complete a key stage 4 programme at school. They may be truanting, at risk of exclusion or simply failing to manage on academic courses.

Others may be on ESOL programmes as new arrivals to the UK.  Many have gained a great deal from taking a predominantly work-related programme and from the more adult atmosphere of a college.  But they have been in a small minority and, inevitably, their impact on the college ethos has been modest.

It may be that direct enrolment will mean a change in funding and management arrangements and little change in numbers. It seems more likely, however, that an increase in numbers will follow and details are eagerly anticipated.  However, we know enough to allow us to make some assessment of the opportunities and risks for colleges.

First it is likely, as predicted by the Wolf report, that students making the transfer to FE will be lower achievers. They are likely to come with more than their fair share of learning and behavioural issues, ones that are by no means always well-addressed within the school system.

This government has consistently downgraded work-related and practical learning”

It is essential that the funding that colleges receive is adequate to meet the needs of these challenging pupils. They will also need to be confident that managing a greater number of such students will not undermine the more adult ethos that has characterised colleges.

Colleges will also need to be sure that they offer an appropriate curriculum. Wolf recommended – and the government accepted – that vocational courses should only take up 20 per cent of curriculum time for students under 16. Colleges will, of course, be gearing up to deliver the English Baccalaureate subjects, amongst others, and in so doing will assess how attractive and successful  their provision is when the vocational aspect of the curriculum is so much more limited.

Everyone involved will carefully evaluate the impact of a free market in provision at 14. Might there be reduced collaboration between schools and colleges if a competitive market for 14 to 16-year-olds emerges?

Schools are likely to resist the loss of their abler students but will perhaps encourage those less likely to contribute to performance targets to make the transfer.

There could be a real risk of a two-tier system, with schools focusing on abler pupils and colleges being expected to pick up lower attainers.

Yet direct enrolment is unlikely to work unless there is real partnership between schools, colleges and local authorities. Colleges will also have to engage fully with local systems for admissions, exclusions and special educational needs, and be supported in return.

These challenges can be met over time, but a period of transition has to be negotiated first. And this is against a backdrop of an education finance squeeze and where, for example, even the physical infrastructure of some colleges may not lend itself to a rapid change in the age profile of students.

This government has consistently downgraded work-related and practical learning, promoting EBacc as the only path to success.

Labour wants a much stronger vocational pathway with an appropriately enhanced role for colleges in delivering it. But we believe this should be achieved by strengthening local planning and partnerships, not by a simplistic free market approach.