There are practical steps we can take to get traineeships back into the limelight – where they fully deserve to be. By Ceara Roopchand

One of the dangers of sector reforms is the tendency for older programmes to be left languishing, often sidelined with the hope that they will continue to function without requiring too much intervention by policymakers.

With apprenticeships in the spotlight following the levy reforms in 2017, and increasing focus on the soon-to-be-introduced T-level programme, technical education has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years. But in the case of traineeships, persistent barriers have impeded the programme from becoming the success originally envisaged.

Introduced by the government in 2013, traineeships are designed to enable young people who lack work experience to progress rapidly to employment, an apprenticeship or into further education. The latest available data paints a dismal picture, with starts declining year-on-year between Q1 2015-16 and Q1 2018-19, with only 17,700 starts last year, but these numbers haven’t attracted much attention against the massive slump in apprenticeship starts that occurred in the levy’s first year.

The barriers to success include the ongoing perverse measures of the Qualification Achievement Rates (QAR) as defined by the ESFA, which penalise providers even when trainees are successfully progressing into the primary progression outcomes.

As a result, many providers have reluctantly withdrawn from delivering traineeships to the detriment of young people, many of whom are NEET or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Employers have also been put off by bad publicity in 2017 relating to two large companies offering unpaid, but good-quality and valuable, work experience.

I am not aware of a single keynote speech from a minister backing traineeships

The fact that in one of these, around 40% of the trainees progressed into paid employment via an apprenticeship was somehow lost in the media coverage. With questions now over the viability of some level 2 apprenticeships, we’re witnessing an unfortunate example of the ladder of opportunity being pulled from young people before they even get a chance to step on it. In AELP’s view, the point about having no formal position on paid or unpaid work experience should be a lesson government needs to consider when looking at the industry-placement aspect of the T-levels.

If I were to stumble upon a magic lamp on my next trip to the DfE, what would my three wishes be? Firstly, I would wish to address the QAR methodology which AELP has consistently said is not fit for purpose for traineeships and continues to punish providers due to ongoing issues between the main programme (progression) and component parts (qualifications).

A success measure methodology that takes into account whether progression is achieved or otherwise, in addition to achieving component aims, is a more practical measurement and likely to be supported by providers.

The second wish is to address the lack of flexibility in the current funding system on which this highly effective programme is based. A good starting point is to review how growth requests are managed, moving to a flexible process rather than a lagged model to meet demand and help support the growth aspirations of providers.

Furthermore, the calculation for growth allocations should be made clearer to providers. However, we should acknowledge and welcome this week’s announcement from the ESFA offering additional in-year growth for 19-24 traineeships.

Our last request would be for more visible government support of the traineeship brand. Traineeships briefly shared the platform with apprenticeships as part of the government’s flagship skills programmes but publicity and public support for the programme have dwindled dramatically.

I am not aware of a single keynote speech from a minister backing or publically promoting traineeships. It would be far better to avoid variations in support between further education programmes to maximize the awareness and choice of opportunities.

The long awaited “skills index” is too high-level to contribute to any targeted policy decisions, says Tom Richmond

“The Department for Education (DfE) has not defined what success will look like for the programme, in terms of intended impact on skills levels within the economy, nor what indicators they will use to measure success.” The National Audit Office (NAO) was, as ever, unfailingly polite in its report about the state of the government’s apprenticeship reforms in 2016.

Even so, its message was hardly subtle. Four years after the infamous Richard review kicked off the sweeping changes to how apprenticeships are designed, delivered and funded, the government still didn’t know what it was trying to achieve or how it would know if it had achieved it.

Fast forward to 2019 and the NAO reported that some improvements had been made, as the DfE had started collecting data on earnings and how many apprentices stayed with their employer over time. The NAO also stumbled across something called the “skills index” that was viewed as a proxy measure for the reforms’ impact, but even then the DfE had not set out how its calculations fed into its index or what kind of increase in the index would constitute “success”.

We finally have an answer to at least some of these questions following the publication on Monday of the “skills index” for the first time. The index, which aims to monitor the aggregate value of the skills generated by apprenticeships and classroom-based learning over time, uses four sources of data: the number of funded learners that achieved qualifications in that academic year; the proportion of learners that were employed after achieving their qualification; the percentage earnings returns to having achieved a qualification; and the average real earnings for employed achievers.

The overall trend in the index is unsurprising, yet disheartening. Since the index was benchmarked at a score of 100 for 2012-13, it has dropped to a score of just 73 in 2017-18. Although the score for apprenticeships has actually risen from 100 to 118 over this period, the collapse of classroom-based provision from 100 to 48 has dragged the overall index down with it. Significant funding cuts to FE, with the disappointing uptake of FE loans, have inevitably taken their toll on learner volumes.

The overall trend in the index is unsurprising

In general, apprenticeships present a healthier picture within the skills index relative to classroom provision. The move towards higher-level apprenticeships and older learners seems to have contributed to a slight increase in the average “value-added” attributable to each apprentice (probably through higher earnings), although this shift in emphasis within the apprenticeship system remains controversial.

So what have we learned from this new index? Not much, in all honesty. It is potentially a useful tool in the sense that it captures how many learners start and finish their training, in the classroom and workplace. Incorporating earnings and employment data into the evaluation of vocational education is a sensible step too, as we cannot afford to use precious funds on sub-standard courses that do not benefit learners.

That said, the index is so high-level – one set of figures for all classroom-based learning and another set for all apprenticeships – that it becomes virtually impossible to use the index to make any targeted policy decisions either now or in future.

If the number of apprentices went up, but their earnings went down, should the DfE remain calm or start to panic? How important are employment rates compared to the number of starts? Without the granular data provided by level, sector and age breakdowns, it is hard to see how anyone outside the DfE will be able to utilise this index in a meaningful way.

Perhaps the most telling aspect is that the index has only emerged now, almost seven years after the government’s major skills reforms began. This uncomfortable truth arguably says more about the rigour and substance of the reforms than any index ever will.

Progress has stalled on improving qualifications for young people, but there are signs of progress on English and maths, says Stephen Evans

First, the bad news. The proportion of 19-year-olds gaining a level 2 or level 3 qualification has stalled. More than eight in ten have a level 2 qualification, and six in ten a level 3.

This has fallen over the past five years, following generations of improvement. T-levels and apprenticeships have a lot of work to do to plug this gap. . .

But on to some better news. The number of young people gaining good grades at English and maths GCSEs or equivalent, so crucial for life and work, is rising.

The percentage of 16-year-olds gaining these qualifications has been rising for some time – up from 40 per cent in 2005 to 60 per cent today. But until recently, few young people who missed out at 16 went on to gain English and maths level 2 qualifications by age 19. Of the 330,000 16-year-olds who didn’t get an English or maths GCSE at a “good” grade in 2002, only one in twenty had done so by age 19. By 2014, this had risen to one in ten.

In the same year the condition of funding was introduced requiring study to level 2 English and maths after age 16 for those not qualified to level 2. Today, 224,000 16-year-olds did not get their required GCSE English and maths grades. But one in five of these went on to gain good GCSEs in English and maths by age 19, rising to 27 per cent, including functional skills qualifications. The policy focus has clearly helped to reinforce and accelerate the trend of improvement, though progress is faster for English than maths.

Why is this a big deal? The 2011 Wolf review, which led to the condition of funding, highlighted how fundamental English and maths are to life and work, that progression rates for these skills are low in England after the age of 16, and that the lack of requirement to study these subjects after this age is unusual compared with other countries. Since then, research has shown the huge impact missing out on a grade C (before the change to the marking scheme) GCSE can have on a young person’s prospects.

Too often, GCSE English and maths at age 16 have been a sliding doors moment. It shouldn’t be that way, and the statistics suggest more young people are now getting more chances.

The fact more young people are getting the English and maths qualifications they need shows the policy is making a positive difference. But that doesn’t mean the current policy is perfect. There are still too many young people on a Groundhog Day of multiple GCSE retakes, risking putting them off learning altogether. Recent tweaks and clarifications to the policy should help, including clarity that those with GCSE grade 2 or below don’t need to then continue on to GCSE, but there may be further to go to “soften the edges”.

More can also be done to invest in teaching and support, to better share data on previous attainment, and to build the evidence base and share best practice. We also need a strategy for the many young people not currently in education – whether they are in work or on benefits – to improve these core skills.

That includes looking at how functional skills operate in work-based learning such as apprenticeships. Last, studies of literacy and numeracy show that qualifications don’t always translate into skills – learning happens best when it’s linked to real-world scenarios and reinforced.

The Learning and Work Institute’s youth commission will look at all these issues. But that shouldn’t distract us from celebrating the fact that more young people are getting English and maths qualifications. Our challenge is to make sure even more young people can build the skills they need.