When Doug Richard was asked about the successful Swiss system for apprenticeships at the launch of the call for evidence for his Review, he correctly highlighted the differences in the scale and complexity of our respective economies. And yet there is something beguiling about the simplicity that the Swiss have achieved in their arrangements. A group of us visited recently to see what lessons there were to learn.

An apprenticeship is the most common way by which young people start their working lives in Switzerland. They know this is their preferred pathway from an early age and they and their families set out to research and find the best employment opportunity they can. Employers gear their annual recruitment around school leavers becoming available and let it be known how many recruits they expect to need up to a year in advance. Simple!

There are a number of similarities in our systems, including the wide range of potential occupations for apprentices and the popularity of business and service sector apprenticeships. But inevitably the differences are of greater interest.

Employer ownership of apprenticeships was very evident. There was no discussion about an ‘employer contribution’.

The Swiss employers that we met do not seem as concerned as us about not continuing to employ apprentices themselves at the end of their apprenticeship. They employ those they need and feel that the rest have had a great training experience and will have no problem getting work. With one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the world, they look to be proved right.

They had a simple one year bridging course for those who needed a pre-apprenticeship that would be worth examining as we strengthen our apprenticeship progression arrangements.

It was striking how few young people undertake a vocational course that is not an apprenticeship. Because of the dual system and an acceptance that an apprenticeship is the superior ‘offer’ for a young person, there is little appetite for vocational courses. In effect they are seen as sub-standard Apprenticeships ie lacking an employer and real employment. They were surprised how many vocational courses were offered in the UK.

The comparative length of apprenticeships was of course very interesting following our move to minimum one year duration. International colleagues are interested in the flexibility of our system but the short duration apprenticeships troubled them (as they did us). The remaining two year apprenticeships in Switzerland are disappearing quickly in favour of longer ones. I have asked to see the detail of some of the frameworks where I know the content is pretty demanding here but the Swiss take longer in order to see the differences. The frameworks contain some more general education elements and a lot more on languages. But my strong impression was that there was no rush to complete an apprenticeship and that the apprentices and their employers took all the time they needed to learn and practice their skills. Their results in international skills competitions suggest the final learning levels are very impressive.

Employer ownership of apprenticeships was very evident. There was no discussion about an ‘employer contribution’. I am not sure this would be a question they would understand easily. They owned and managed the training. The local college (typically) provided the necessary off the job knowledge ie the provider and the state made the contribution.

Transparency seemed to act as a powerful lever to drive up standards through shared learning and continuous improvement”

Having read the recent CBI Skills Survey and the strong feelings by employers that vocational qualifications need to be made more relevant to the needs of business, the employers we met had absolute confidence in the standards that they have helped set. This is where Doug Richard’s point about scale came home to me. There are fewer employer players in the skills system plus strong links to trade bodies. This gave employers the confidence that they truly influenced the skills that were being produced. As a result they did not want to have extra flexibility or keep tinkering with the standards. They knew what they were getting, liked it and, if anything needed adding, they would add it themselves.

It is often the case that you are taken aback by practices in other countries that feel very natural there. For example, in Switzerland (as in some other countries), the successful completion of an apprenticeship entitles you to a University place in your specialist area. Employers are also asked to sign off the work of apprentices in other companies. When we visited Credit Suisse, they had experts from rival companies testing their apprentices. This transparency seemed to act as a powerful lever to drive up standards through shared learning and continuous improvement.

There was a great deal more of interest but you sensed the relative economic and business stability. The best employers saw apprenticeships as the primary vehicle for their future supply of young people who could be trained and moulded for their business or to help the economy at large. Simple and impressive.

David Way is interim chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service

During a recession it would make more sense for people to be supported to learn new skills in further education than paid to look for jobs that don’t exist. That is the simple headline message of a new report prepared by the 157 Group to be published this week.

Colleges maintain that there are many young people, and older people too, who would benefit from the opportunity to retrain or increase their qualifications but are prevented from doing so by the lack of maintenance support.

Colleges contribute in several ways to tackling unemployment and could do more were the right policies in place. The most obvious way they contribute is in providing a constructive alternative to staying at home on benefits or fruitless job search. Further education courses can equip people with the skills the economy will need when the upturn comes, to the benefit of both individuals and employers.

Colleges need to be able to offer those parts of courses that employers want, not just that which is on a government approved list.

For many, however, financial support is key. The latest figures on participation for 16 to 18-year-olds show that the percentage in education and training has fallen for the first time in a decade; and that it is concentrated among those groups hit by the loss of EMAs.

For adults the government’s impact assessment shows that many older learners will feel unable to continue if grant support for fees is replaced by loans. A first policy priority has to be to stop participation falling further.

But there are options for participation to grow. There is a marked lack of maintenance support available for those wanting to undertake full time FE compared with the billions spent on full time HE.

It ought to be possible to introduce a system of grants and loans on the same lines as for undergraduates that would, in part, be paid for by savings on Job Seeker’s Allowance and other benefits. It would make sense to give JSA claimants the option of a learning loan, rather than having a learning programme truncated by the vagaries of the 16-hour rule.

If business and colleges are pulling in the same direction it is hard to see how government can resist.

It would be good if self improvement through FE were actively encouraged rather than grudgingly conceded.

It is not, however, simply a question of money. The other major way FE contributes to tackling unemployment is by helping firms remain competitive and the report suggests colleges could do more were they not restricted in what they can offer. Firms need support with business problems and do not always want qualifications. Colleges need to be able to offer those parts of courses that employers want, not just that which is on a government approved list.

This latter point is picked up by John Cridland, director general of the CBI, in a foreword commending the report. “Now, the focus must be on ensuring colleges are freed up to work with businesses at the local level” he says, a point echoed by Paula Whittle, Principal of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College who leads on unemployment for the 157 Group saying “We need funding flexibility and the promotion of the full range of FE programmes in the same way as government has actively promoted apprenticeships”.

If business and colleges are pulling in the same direction it is hard to see how government can resist.

Mick Fletcher is an FE consultant and author of the 157 Group Policy Paper

David Cameron has created a National Childcare Commission in the wake of Professor Cathy Nutbrown’s review of qualifications for the Early Years workforce. Nutbrown wants tougher entry requirements, starting at level 3, to raise the quality and status of childcare workers. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Truss MP, in a recent report for the think tank Centreforum, calls for complete deregulation and a stripping away of qualifications she insists are unnecessary.

How does this sit alongside Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s latest pledge to ensure free childcare places for an additional 260,000 of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds by 2014? He says he wants qualified staff to do the job. So, how do colleges and other providers go about training the army of staff needed within two years? Or will Truss’s arguments win out?

The challenge for the new commission will be to ensure that cutting costs does not take precedence over the urgent need to improve the quality of childcare – a difficult task given the state of the economy. But decades of research evidence tell us that cost-cutting is a false economy and argues persuasively for rigorous high-quality initial training and continuous professional development.

With high quality training and small childcare groups, there is a greater tendency towards self improvement.

A meta-analysis of international research, by the Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education, showed conclusively that training, staff ratios and group size “have a direct impact on the ability of staff to provide sensitive, responsive care for children.” No research since that report in 2002 has contradicted this, as the Nutbrown review shows. Only competency-based training can provide childcare staff with the necessary skills and supportive theory.

A deeper argument emerges repeatedly in inspection reports on best providers. The Thomas Coram report echoes this: “In provision with high staff-child ratios, staff are more likely to be well qualified, have access to training, be better paid, and be less likely to leave their jobs. In high quality settings, staff spend more time planning how to deliver the curriculum, keep more effective records on the children in their care, and communicate more effectively with parents.”

In other words, with high quality training and small childcare groups, there is a greater tendency towards self improvement and, therefore, greater demand from parents. We know too from similar studies that such children are healthier and are more likely to find sustainable employment when older. This makes a strong business case: such spending is an investment not a cost.

The Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education (CACHE) has been the major provider of high quality qualifications in the children’s sector for 67 years, ever since it wrote the first national Nursery Education Board (NNEB) qualification in 1945. It is committed to providing quality and rigorously monitors the standards of all training providers who offer its qualifications.

Evidence shows young children gain from individual attention to a degree not possible if staff work with large numbers of children.

Children deserve a good start and most experts agree with Professor Nutbrown that training should last a minimum of 2 years and be at level 3 (equivalent to A-level standard). However, this means costs rise. It also reduces access to childcare because some potential recruits to the workforce won’t commit time to training before they start to earn.

Professor Nutbrown’s call for all childcare trainees to have level 2 (GCSE-equivalent) English and mathematics before they start training will further reduce the number of recruits. It is argued that a way to overcome this is to allow professional early years workers to take responsibility for larger groups. But I would urge caution here; the evidence shows young children gain from individual attention to a degree not possible if staff work with large numbers of children.

The Nutbrown’s report raises another issue. Young people who underachieve are often guided into childcare through poor careers advice at school. They need entry qualifications at levels 1 and 2 which allow them to work under supervision. If the entry grade is raised to level 3, this would remove the stepping stones these young people need. Equally, many adults who failed at school rediscover a love of learning through a level 1 childcare qualification. They gain self confidence and often progress to university. The entry level start therefore not only strengthens childcare provision but provides a springboard to other careers.

It is vital that this quality is not sacrificed in the interest of saving money and providing accessibility – or it will be a time bomb ticking for the next generation.

Richard Dorrance is chief executive of the Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education (CACHE)