In order to deliver the skilled workers our economy needs, education and industry need to forge closer links, says Paul Kessell-Holland

The rapid pace of change in technical education shows no signs of slowing. There has been an endless succession of commissions, reports, recommendations and plans, with the over-arching theme being ‘we need more engineers/scientists/technicians but where will these people come from?’

New technical workers are a fairly straightforward economic need, but there are a range of challenges inherent in fulfilling it. We clearly require a greater number of skilled staff in a range of industrial and technical disciplines, but this means we need to get more young people interested in following a career in these fields, and to retrain people established in other areas of employment. And this means we need to provide them with a robust, relevant and comprehensive technical education.

Education providers are, in the main, reporting that recruitment to science engineering and technology courses is growing – the lure of well-paid jobs with a career path as well as a resurgence of interest in industry and manufacturing is persuading more young people to train. Unfortunately this is only exacerbating a separate problem – where do the teachers come from?

Professionalising teaching is an important aim

Traditionally many of the teaching staff at colleges have come from industry, and this is one of the great powers of the technical and vocational training sector: it means relevant and up-to-date knowledge in the classroom, and a real understanding of the world of work. However, this steady stream of career changers is not enough to meet demand any longer, and we need to begin to grow wider and deeper recruitment plans if we are to meet demand. The Education and Training Foundation is working with a range of organisations on a number of pilot programmes to see how best to establish a larger pool of technical teaching talent and source new staff.

Crucially, these programmes need to do more than simply supporting the recruitment of individuals. For example, professional engineers are experts in their field; they understand only too well the need to remain up to date in their chosen discipline. Education is no different, and without a strong understanding of educational practice many new entrants to the profession struggle to get across their depth of knowledge in their subject.

Others may have substantial academic and theoretical knowledge but lack the key industrial experience that makes their teaching come alive and feel relevant for learners. This is why in all our teacher recruitment programmes we combine initial teacher training to an appropriate level with a wider experience of industrial updating or work shadowing, to ensure everything in the classroom reflects the world of work wherever possible. By building and maintaining local partnerships with industry the ETF is working to ensure every young person studying technical disciplines does so with teachers who know their subject, and know how to teach it in equal measure.

Professionalising teaching is an important aim. The professional standards for teachers and trainers underpin all our work, providing a common language for education professionals to discuss what they do in the classroom. The Society for Education and Training is a constantly growing professional body which supports this agenda on a whole career basis. Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills provide a real pinnacle achievement for technical teaching staff wanting to demonstrate real professional skill.

Behind all this activity lies a simple equation: the more professional the teaching workforce, the better the teaching. The better the teaching, the better the outcomes for learners. The more success our learners experience, the more will remain in education and the higher their achievements. The economy needs these young people, and the economy needs their teachers to be ready and well equipped for the challenges to come.

 

Paul Kessell-Holland is head of partnerships at the Education and Training Foundation

If we really want to develop our economy, we should focus more on the top echelons, suggests Adrian Anderson

At the recent AELP June conference there was a lot of talk about the value of intermediate apprenticeships and the importance of not equating quality apprenticeships with those at a higher level. But let’s be quite clear: if the purpose of apprenticeships is to raise productivity and enhance social mobility, England’s apprenticeship programme must have a significant focus on higher-level skills provision. 

From a productivity standpoint, ask any economist and they will emphasise the UK’s acute need of a highly skilled workforce to compete with our OECD and BRIC competitors. If you have these skills, you’re also likely to earn more. For these reasons, apprenticeships have been positioned as England’s flagship skills programme, but look at the current figures on delivery and it’s clear how much the focus of apprenticeship delivery has to change.

In the 2015/16 academic year there were 509,400 apprenticeship starts. By level, this was 57 per cent at level two, 38 per cent at level three, two per cent at level four, three per cent at level five and just 0.2 per cent at level six. The top five starts by apprenticeship framework were: health and social care (85k), business administration (50k), management (46k), hospitality and catering (32k), and customer service (26K)

Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change?

The apprenticeship reforms and the levy, however, herald a clear and significant shift upwards in apprenticeship levels. Employers have taken a lead through the trailblazer process to develop apprenticeships that are needed by the economy. 

NHS trusts, with massive levy bills, have developed degree apprenticeships in nursing. Degree apprenticeships are also being developed by local authorities for social workers and by police forces for officers, occupations vital to the provision of high-quality public services. Surely no one could disagree with a substantial focus and public sector levy spend on degree apprenticeships in nursing, social work and policing? 

In the private sector let’s hope our post-Brexit car industry makes extensive use of the manufacturing degree apprenticeship and our lights are kept on by the nuclear industry combatting chronic skills shortages through investment in the nuclear engineering degree apprenticeship. Through investment in the digital solutions higher and degree apprenticeships we’ll have a better chance of overcoming the cyberattacks that have featured in the news in recent months. 

And yes, there are some occupations where intermediate apprenticeships should be valued. No one would doubt the case for apprenticeships in butchery, bakery or carpentry, for instance. My point is that the current balance in apprenticeship provision is wrong and there’s been far too much focus on the generic lower-level apprenticeships in questionable job roles. Wasn’t this also a conclusion of the Richard review?

From a social mobility standpoint, the argument is also clear-cut: intermediate apprenticeships do help many young people enter the labour market. But don’t we need clear work-based progression routes to higher level occupations, ideally through higher and degree apprenticeships, for the system to make a major contribution to social mobility? Shouldn’t one of the ambitions of the reforms be an employer-funded debt-free route from apprenticeships to the professions, in which individual learners, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, earn while they learn? And if employers want to shift away from some of the old generic level two frameworks, will not the needs of new learners who would, in the past, have followed such programmes be best met by the new T-levels? 

Of course, a change in focus could be difficult for some providers – but change Will happen. The opportunities, however, are substantial: through the levy there’s significantly more funding (40 per cent more!) than in the past for delivery. The government is planning substantial investment in T-levels, which is another opportunity. We’re also seeing both independent training providers and further education colleges developing their presence in the higher and degree apprenticeship market. Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change and be at the forefront of developing the skills needed by the UK economy? 

 

Adrian Anderson is chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council

The countries with the best apprenticeships in the world have far more training than we do in the UK, explains Tom Richmond

Now that Ofsted expects numeracy to be embedded across the curriculum, let us take this opportunity to practise a little maths ourselves. 

Say an apprentice is employed for 35 hours a week, seven hours a day. If they spend one day each week training off the job for a full year, that equates, excluding holidays, to just over 300 hours of training. And because the government is clear that an apprentice must spend a minimum of 20 per cent of their employment on off-the-job training, this means that every apprentice needs to spend well over 300 hours of every year of their apprenticeship engaged in learning away from their job. 

The AELP is crying foul, claiming this 20 per cent rule is too crude a method to raise quality and that such a simplistic measure cannot be used to hold providers to account. It also cites a lack of willingness among some employers to release apprentices for this amount of time. On all three counts, the AELP is correct – but its complaints should nonetheless be ignored.

As far back as 2013, the government has insisted that all apprenticeships produced by their ongoing reform programme must involve at least 20 per cent off-the-job training. Leaving aside the absurdity of civil servants taking four years to explain what 20 per cent actually means, last month’s long-awaited guidance was a welcome attempt to steady the ship.  

Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands are often cited as the gold standards of apprenticeships. Although each system has unique elements, they share an unwavering commitment to extensive training both on and off the job – with the latter taking up around a quarter to a third of an apprentice’s working week. 

This helps to put our paltry expectation of 20 per cent into perspective. Through varying combinations of ‘day release’ and ‘block release’ delivery models, continental apprenticeships promote high expectations and standards alongside more commitment from employers, apprentices and providers. 

The overriding problem with the current debate over the 20 per cent rule is that the debate should never have happened in the first place. If ministers and civil servants had been brave enough to reject the dreadful new apprenticeship standards that barely require any training whatsoever (the hospitality team member and delivery driver standards spring to mind, among many others), we would not need to have this discussion. 

Contrast the poorest standards with new apprenticeships for automotive engineers, construction surveyors and welders, and you begin to understand why 20 per cent off-the-job training looks unachievable for weak standards while remaining well below what is needed to deliver the more impressive ones. 

In short, any respectable apprenticeship will require hundreds of hours of training away from the workplace because it is related to a skilled occupation requiring substantial and substantive training (the government’s words, incidentally, not mine) that easily surpasses the mandated minimum of 20 per cent. 

If there are any employers that take issue with their apprentices having to acquire a wider range of knowledge and understanding during their course, or if any providers are unable or unwilling to train their apprentices, then we should politely wave them goodbye and focus instead on employers and providers whose actions demonstrate that they value high-quality provision. 

The 20 per cent off-the-job rule is far from perfect, but it must be protected in order to protect apprentices from the worst of what our apprenticeship system has to offer.

 

Tom Richmond is a sixth-form college tutor and former senior adviser to skills ministers Nick Boles and Matt Hancock

 

************************************************************************************

Guide to off-the-job training rule

As of May 1 anyone that starts an apprenticeship – whether on a framework or new standard – must now receive at least 20 per cent off-the-job training, according to new Education and Skills Funding Agency rules.

The requirement, which was first announced back in 2013, is one of the government’s core principles for protecting the quality of the apprenticeship programme.

‘Off the job’ is defined as: “Learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-to-day working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship. 

“This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”

Guidance published by the Department for Education in June stipulated that “each apprentice should have a commitment statement that, among other information, outlines the programme of training that the apprentice should receive” and which “should set out how the provider intends to fulfil the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement”.

And the provider must submit evidence that the training is being delivered in order to draw down apprenticeship funding. 

But actually working out what counts as ‘off the job’ – or even how much there should be – is far from simple. 

The percentage is calculated on the basis of an apprentice’s contracted hours of work, spread over the duration of their apprenticeship.

For example, if someone is on a two-year apprenticeship and has an employment contract for seven hours a day, five days a week, for 46 weeks that adds up to a total of 3,220 contracted hours over the two years. 

So the minimum amount of time they should spend in off-the-job training would be 644 hours, or the equivalent of one day per working week. 

But this does not have to be undertaken at set times: “It is up to the employer and provider to decide at what point during the apprenticeship the training is best delivered.”

Nor does it have to be delivered in a set format.

For training to count towards the 20 per cent rule, it must teach “new knowledge, skills and/or behaviours that will contribute to the successful achievement of an apprenticeship”. 

It must also be “directly relevant to the apprenticeship” and could include teaching of theory, practical training or time spent completing assignments. 

Training can be carried out at the apprentice’s normal workstation, as long as they are learning new skills – “it is the activity, rather than the location” that counts. 

And some – but not all – off-the-job training can be delivered via distance learning. 

No training the apprentice does in their own time counts towards the 20 per cent rule – except in exceptional circumstances, and only if the apprentice is given time off in lieu – nor do performance reviews.

And any English and maths training doesn’t count either – if it’s needed, it must be on top of the 20 per cent.