A shake-up of apprenticeships will see all programmes for 16 to 18 year-olds take place for at least a year.

Skills minister John Hayes revealed the new measure, which comes into place from August 2012, during a debate on apprenticeships at the House of Commons on Monday.

He also revealed that delivery models must include a “rigorous” amount of job-relevant learning and training.

The National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) will now look at extending the new minimum length of delivery to older learners and take action to improve any frameworks failing to deliver new and relevant skills.

“If the standards are sufficiently stretching and the expectations of competence high, I believe that a course should naturally extend over at least 12 months,” Mr Hayes said.

“That will be the expectation first for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices from August 2012, as new contracts to training providers are issued.”

However, Gordon Marsden, shadow minister for further education, skills and lifelong learning, said Mr Hayes needed to do more to help apprentices of all ages.

“The minister’s announcement will do nothing immediately to address the concerns about the quality and progression of apprenticeships for those in the crucial age range between 19 and 24,” said Mr Marsden.

“After all, their futures are just as important to the economy and jobs as those in the younger range.

“We will therefore be pressing ministers to ensure that apprenticeship standards and quality are maintained for all ages.”

News on the new method has sparked a wide-reaching debate from across the sector.

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said the minimum delivery length is “sensible” and could also extend to adult apprentices.

He said: “We have been discussing this requirement with Government over the past weeks and agree that 12 months represent a sensible minimum period for the necessary learning, reflection and embedding within an apprenticeship for a young person.

“The situation for an older apprentice, who may already have the required functional Maths and English skills and have experience in the relevant sector, is more nuanced, but even here we think it reasonable that there be a presumed minimum duration of 12 months from which special dispensation should be sought on a case by case basis.”

Mr Doel added: “Taken together, we think that these changes will reinforce the apprenticeship ‘brand’ and will help support its continued sustainable growth as a quality offer to employers and employees of whatever age.”

However, the 157 Group has stressed that longer apprenticeships do not necessarily equate to a better quality of training for the learner.

“Focus should remain on the criteria around teaching and learning and the strength of the framework and its content rather than the length of delivery,” a spokesperson said.

“However, we recognise that there has previously been an issue around short apprenticeships which have not led to positive outcomes.”

Graham Hoyle, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said  he would be “concerned” if the minimum duration was applied to older employees.

“We’re rather against formal time serving periods, because that was something for the past which didn’t take into account the individual’s capacity to learn and move forward,” Mr Hoyle said.

“But with 16 to 18 year-olds, clearly the vast majority of them need a minimum period to clear a full framework.”

Mr Hoyle added: “We will be slightly more concerned if they put minimum levels in for older workers, who bring in their own experence and skills with them.

“They need less time to actually complete a full framework – but that’s not what has happened.”

A spokesperson from the UK Commission of Employment and Skills (UKCES) said focusing on the length of the apprenticeship “is only one half of the story”.

She added: “The content and quality of the learning experience delivered through apprenticeships is also important, and we believe that means ensuring that employers have greater ownership of the content and development of apprenticeships.”

The issue on quality was also covered by Mr Hayes during the parliamentary debate, where he announced plans for a crackdown by the NAS.

Mr Hayes said: “I have asked the NAS to work with the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils to tighten guidance for those who are developing apprenticeship frameworks, to ensure that expectations on national standards and rigour are met, and to take action where frameworks are insufficiently stretching.

“In the current economic times, we must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that funding delivers value and is properly spent.”

The minister said the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) will tighten contracts with colleges and training providers in order to withdraw funding where quality standards are not being met.

Mr Hayes said: “Our resolve is to ensure that every penny of public money delivers high-quality apprenticeships and to continue to weed out failure and weakness wherever they are found.

“I will make the evidence available in my submissions to that inquiry, giving a clear timetable of action and details of the steps we intend to take to root out poor provision.”

The announcements have come off the back of a number of stories in FE Week surrounding the concerns of short apprenticeships.

A debate was also hosted in the House of Commons on the matter, which was brought up by Mr Marsden in his response on Monday.

“There is a lively and on-going debate about the nature of apprenticeships – an issue to which the Government have rapidly been forced to turn because of some of the disquiet in recent months,” Mr Marsden said.

“That was apparent from a meeting in this House organised recently by FE Week, when more than 80 apprenticeship providers came to the Commons to voice their views and concerns about quality and overstretch in apprenticeships, which is something that we have also articulated via our parliamentary questions.”

All apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds must last at least a year, Skills Minister John Hayes MP will announce in the House of Commons today.

Mr Hayes is expected to say that all new apprenticehips must take place for a minimum of 12 months from August 2012, and include a ‘rigorous’ amount of job-relevant learning and training.

The National Apprenticeship Service (NAS), among a number of new measures confirmed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), will look at extending the new length of delivery to older learners, and take action to improve any apprenticeship frameworks failing to deliver new and relevant skills.

The NAS will also work in partnership with the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to clampdowm on poor use of provision.

New measures include withdrawing public funding from training providers who fail to meet quality standards.

The announcement follows a rise in apprenticeships being delivered in as little as 12 weeks, offering very little training or new job prospects for young people.

(You can watch the announcement by John Hayes MP on Parliament TV from 3:30pm)

UPDATE: For more on this story click here

The BIS Statement reads:

“HAYES TAKES ACTION TO STRENGTHEN APPRENTICESHIPS

On Monday Skills Minister John Hayes will be taking part in an Apprenticeship Debate. As part of this he is expected to announce tough new measures to help assure that every apprenticeship delivers world class training for learners and businesses, and that all apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds last for at least twelve months.  

These measures include:

Apprenticeships must entail a rigorous period of job-relevant learning, and the practice of new skills, normally extending over at least 12 months.   From August 2012, all apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds must last for at least 12 months. The National Apprenticeship Service will look at whether this requirement should extend to older apprentices, taking account they will often start from a higher base. Every apprenticeship will deliver significant new learning – and never be about the accreditation of existing knowledge and experience.

Tighter guidance for those developing apprenticeship frameworks will ensure national quality standards are always met.  The National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) will take action to improve any frameworks that are not delivering relevant and challenging new skills.

NAS will work with the Skills Funding Agency to crack down on poor provision and where there is evidence public money is being over-claimed. In cases where training fails to meet required quality standards, contracts will be tightened to allow for public funding to be immediately withdrawn from training providers.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “The apprenticeships programme is a success story, with record numbers of learners starting an apprenticeship
this year.

“The measures announced today will ensure that we cut no corners on quality. All apprenticeships will be consistently delivered to a high standard, we will crack down on poor provision and ultimately withdraw funds from those providers that can not improve.”

Skills Minister John Hayes said:

“Putting apprenticeships back at the heart of our education and skills system is one of the Government’s proudest achievements, with record investment paying dividends for businesses and trainees.  With more employers and more apprentices involved in the programme than ever before, we will continue to raise standards and ensure the high quality of every apprenticeship.  My resolve is to ensure every penny of public money delivers high quality training, and continue to weed out failure and fraud wherever it is found to exist.”

Apprenticeships deliver strong benefits for apprentices, employers and the wider economy. Around 450,000 new apprentices started last year, and over 50,000 workplaces took on apprentices for the first time.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

In today’s debate in the House of Commons John Hayes announced a number of new measures to boost the quality of apprenticeship  provision. He set out new steps to assure that every apprenticeship will deliver world class training for learners and businesses, normally extending for at least twelve months. For those aged 16-18, this period will become a minimum in all cases from August 2012, as new contracts are issued. 

The National Apprenticeship Service will also assess the implications of extending the above requirement to other ages.  If standards are sufficiently stretching all apprenticeships will naturally extend over 12 months.  This is in line with the requirement for every apprentice not already qualified to this level to receive training in English and Maths to the level of a good GCSE.

In November the Government set out its priorities for the next phase of the Apprenticeships programme, including financial incentives for smaller firms to take on their first apprentices, the creation of some 19,000 degree level apprenticeships through the Higher Apprenticeships Fund, and a new £250m fund to give employers more control over how publicly funded training is delivered. For more info see the BIS website

The apprenticeships budget from 2011/12 is £1.4bn

For the latest apprenticeship opportunities visit www.apprenticeships.org.uk”

Related articles in FE Week (incl. info graphic ~ 11mb):

Government figures show adult apprenticeships more than tripled

Hundreds of 12 week apprenticeships advertised on NAS website are ‘under review’

Short 12 week apprenticeships are off the menu

Remind me again why I pay the training budget of a $422bn company?

City and Guilds allocated more than £8m for 25,000 Asda Apprentices

Morrisons, Elmfied and the over 25 Apprentices

12 week apprenticeships still advertised

Will 12 week apprentices ever be derailed?

Latest apprenticeship policy slammed

NAS concerned about quality following rapid apprenticeship expansion

Concern at 12 week apprenticeships

External related links:

Guardian: Jobs rebranded as apprenticeships, government report warns

Guardian: Apprenticeship figures are not what they seem

Telegraph: Apprenticeships double but concerns over ‘chasing targets’

Mail on Sunday: The great apprentice racket: Some jobs fall short of skills as firms collect millions

Guardian: Big increase in apprenticeships due to ‘striking rise’ in trainees over 25

BBC Radio 4 In Business programme on supermarket apprentices

An arm of the crisis hit Learning and Skills Network (LSN) has been sold.

Ian Oakley-Smith, David Hurst and Karen Dukes of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the administrators of LSN, have revealed this afternoon that National Extension College (NEC) has been bought by the Open School Trust.

As previously revealed by FE Week, the LSN went into administration last month after its turnover dipped by £29 million in two years. It was also handling a pension liability of some £8 million.

The move saves 26 members of staff, who will transfer to the Trust, which has vowed to continue the NEC in the traditions of its founder Michael Young.

However, at this time, little information appears to be available on the Trust.

Mr Oakley-Smith, joint administrator and director at PwC, said: “We are pleased that a charity with such great lineage has gone to a buyer who both understands its ethos and is able to secure its long term future.

“The sale enables the transfer of 26 members of staff within the NEC, will allow existing students to complete their courses and will preserve future employment opportunities in the area for what we hope will be many years.”

Government efforts to reduce bureaucracy in further education (FE) lack clarity and the complete picture, according to a report released today.

Issued by the National Audit Office (NAO), ‘Reducing bureaucracy in further education in England’ is critical of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Skills Funding Agency (SFA) approach to reform.

It highlights a lack of indication of how much the new system should cost, the impact of the reductions proposed and of the changes made by others.

Although admitting that providers welcome changes, the NAO say they “do not have confidence the simplification of the system of administration will be sustained”.

It also reveals the cost of bureaucracy in FE is around £180 million a year to colleges – rising to £250 million including other providers – for administration of funding, qualification and assurance systems, equating to £150 per student.

BIS and SFA have the ambition to make changes to simplify the system, but they must get to grips with the issues we have raised in order to achieve value for money and prevent colleges being embroiled in red tape.”

The NAO recognises the work being undertaken by BIS and the SFA to pursue initiatives to simplify these processes, but declares they are not “well coordinated” and “they do not know the scale of the problem faced” by FE colleges and providers.

Therefore, BIS and SFA, say the NAO, should set “a clear, ambitious target for the scale of the burden reduction they are seeking” to provide more impetus to change.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: “Our estimates show that substantial savings can be made by reducing bureaucracy in FE and demonstrate the need for focused and systematic management of these costs to drive sustained improvements in efficiency.

“BIS and SFA have the ambition to make changes to simplify the system, but they must get to grips with the issues we have raised in order to achieve value for money and prevent colleges being embroiled in red tape.”

Although welcoming the report, the SFA is on the defensive, saying they “take a different view” on the approach used by the NAO.

A statement from the Agency said: “FE providers have been given almost complete freedom to respond to the demands of employers, communities and learners.

“This inevitably creates opportunities to reduce burdens, but these are a result of policy changes rather than their driver, as the NAO approach seems to presume.

“The report also has not sought to distinguish between administrative requirements essential for good stewardship of public money and those that may be unnecessary.

“Finally, while we agree we must ensure no unnecessary burdens remain as we undertake this radical change, the estimates made by the NAO of the potential burden cost savings are at best speculative as they are not grounded in sufficiently robust evidence to be reliable.”

FE and Skills Minister John Hayes said the government will “fast-track” further work to measure the impact of reforms on colleges.

He added: “This report illustrates the considerable progress the government has already made in reducing bureaucracy in FE, identifies the scale of the challenge we inherited and highlights the urgency of our task.

“We are moving at pace to cut red tape and empower the sector to respond more flexibly to the needs of learners and businesses, and many of these reforms have been effective since the NAO undertook its research earlier this year.”

Martin Doel, Association of Colleges chief executive, said there are three main causes for “excessive bureaucracy” in FE.

He described them as “multiple agencies and departments overseeing the sector’s work, rapid policy changes which have led to the layering of incremental regulation and an inherent complexity” driven by wide range of courses, providers and students.

However, Mr Doel added: “While applauding the NAO’s sentiment we must at the same time reflect the healthy scepticism of our members, who have witnessed the unveiling of a number of bureaucracy-busting initiatives since incorporation that have sadly withered on the vine.

“We should also be wary of cuts in front-line funding that are presented as efforts to reduce red tape.

“We sincerely hope that this Government’s strong emphasis on institutional autonomy will ensure that reforms of funding, qualification and assurance systems lead to sustainable cost-savings for colleges and UK plc, while at the same time continuing to support high quality college courses and ensuring the most effective and responsible stewardship of the public purse.”

(Read our interview with Chris Shapcott, National Audit Office director of regulatory reform, here)

We spoke to Chris Shapcott, National Audit Office director of regulatory reform, about the NAO report titled ‘Reducing bureaucracy in further education in England’ published today.

Q) Were these numbers what you expected?

In a way, we produced the report because we didn’t know what to expect! That in a way was the point. In the report we do mention that where was some work done a few years ago, by the Information Authority in 2008  – they had a figure of about £140  million. So in that sense the £184, or £180 million for colleges was not that surprising. But really it’s unknown territory, so any figure is interesting.

We felt that because there wasn’t a good figure out there already, it was important to have a go and make a rough estimate. We’re pleased to see that the agency is now trying to do some more accurate figures themselves. It’ll be very interesting to see what they find out.

Q) A number of key burdens were highlighted by providers in the report. Which do you think are the most significant?

It’s the amount of information they need to get. The learner record for instance has got several hundred fields on it – so there’s a lot of stuff that they need to do.

One of the complications in this area is that they will need some of this information for their own purposes. If you’re a good educational institution, you’re going to be keeping a record of whether people are going to classes, what sort of qualifications they’re getting, what learning experiences they’re getting. The really difficult part of this area is to work out what it is the college needs to be a good educational institution, and then what exactly are they adding onto that to meet these government requirements.

Which  isn’t to say these extras are unnecessary, because clearly government is funding this, and government needs assurance that the money is being used properly and being used for the purpose for which it is provided. What we’re looking for, and what we’re recommending, is a more systematic way of working out how much of this extra information which is being asked for is really pulling it’s weight,  the value you’re getting from it, and what’s it costing you to provide.

It’s important to understand it’s not just a matter of asking for less – finding an easier way for colleges to provide what you’re already asking for maybe just as welcome.

Q) What about the issue of accountability? Is there a possibility that the Government’s drive for increased for simplification and reduced bureaucracy will go too far?

We have produced reports in the past which have been critical of problems in the sector. There was some big scandals about ten years ago for instance, and more recently the Public Accounts Committee has been emphasising the importance of accountability for public money.

So I’m 100% behind that – but it’s a matter of how you do it.

What we want is more scientific, analytical management for this to achieve their objectives.

Q) How difficult will it be to create that system, where you can give out those flexibilities but also ensure there is adequate monitoring and regulation? Is it even feasible?

Yes, clearly we think it’s feasible, or we wouldn’t be reporting on this. What we recognise is that they are doing a lot already, and in fact they’re really quite ambitious. What we’re suggesting is the ways in which they can get even more out of what they’re doing. Which in particular is by getting the information on what it’s really costing people, and what they’re getting for it – which will allow them to do things more efficiently.

The other thing that I think would help, would be a more detailed and clearer picture about what the destination of the journey is. We call it I think the final operating model in the report, but where do you want to get to? They know where they are, and they know a lot of things that they want to change – but where’s it going to end you up?

Q) There isn’t a lot of talk between agencies? Should they be more unified?

There is a lot of talking going on, but as we say in the report – we think they’re not making the most of the opportunity they have to work together. It is a difficult thing, because each department has it’s own responsibilities, and one department can’t tell another department what to do in its ‘patch’. But we think there’s more that could be done there.

Q) What was the reaction from the colleges which you visited in the report?

There was a recognition that there is a lot being done and there is an ambition there. The issue is because people have often been around for quite a long time, particularly the ones in the senior positions, they’ve seen a lot of things before, and so they need a lot of convincing that things are really going to stick. I think they welcome what was being done, they welcome the wish to do more, but there’s natural caution as well.

Q) Colleges said they thought they could reduce their costs by around half. However, the NAO suggested that a 25 per cent target was much more reasonable. How would this be achieved?

It’s things like simplifying the information they have to provide, and not having to provide it quite so often. All of that sort of thing.

The 25 per cent, we’re not saying we definitely  it will be 25 per cent, but 25 per cent is something that has been sought in other areas where people have been looking to make a big reduction. Our feeling is the very act of setting an ambitious target in itself is helpful, because it starts people thinking more radically than if you set a small target. They come up with more creative and novel solutions. It may well be at the end of the day they don’t get the 25% but 18%, but that’s still better than aiming for 10% and getting it.

Q) Response to the SFA comments?

These are all things we’ve addressed in the report, and we were aware of the SFA’s thoughts on this before we published, so if you look at the relevant bits you’ll see we’ve covered the bits they’ve dealt with.

We’re very happy with what we’re saying.

Q) What do you think is the key message  of the NAO report?

The value of measurement and the importance of having a clear view about the destination you’re aiming at. In this particular area, where there are so many people to coordinate, the importance of working hard at that as well.

(Read our news piece on the report here)