Amid the talk of certain apprenticeships not being “appropriate” for government funding, it’s time to be honest about a problem hiding in plain sight. One that needs to be addressed before the axe comes down on funding for operations manager, team leader or any other apprenticeships.
It is likely that many of the so-called “apprenticeships” delivered to adults and funded by the levy are not actually apprenticeships at all.
Had they not been funded, the number of true adult apprentices would not have increased by anything like as much, freeing up money for more apprenticeships for younger people and genuine adult apprentices, including up to level 7 where funding has now ceased for the over 21s.
It’s not too late to fix the problem, but time is short.
It’s worth reminding ourselves of the rules.
- All government-funded apprentices have a right to receive the amount of off-the-job training they need to reach occupational competence. Every apprenticeship has a minimum requirement but there’s but no maximum. In most cases the minimum is set at roughly six hours a week. So, just less than a working day each week.
- Off-the-job-training (all of it – not just the minimum required) must happen during the apprentice’s normal paid working hours. If, by exception, training takes place outside these hours then, a bit like paid overtime, the apprentice must agree and must be paid. It makes no difference how the training is delivered.
- If there is insufficient off-the-job training, or training takes place outside paid working hours, the apprenticeship is not compliant or fundable.
- The agreed off-the-job training requirement serves as proxy for the size of the apprentice’s skills needs. The absolute minimum is 187 hours of training over 8 months – most apprentices need significantly more. This means someone with modest skills needs (a few discrete management topics, say, or they want to learn how to use AI tools to help them in their role) is unlikely to be eligible.
So, for an employer, a genuine apprenticeship is a huge investment, regardless of government funding for the actual training.
Take an operations manager on £50,000 a year, or £25 per hour. The employer, manager and training provider review their skills needs and agree they need 418 hours of training (the usual minimum for the operations manager apprenticeship).
This means the employer has to make an investment just in salary (excluding NI and other costs) of £10,450 (418 x £25). True investment is more because of lost productivity during the training period and the need to cover the apprentice’s work.
The level 6 chartered manager apprenticeship has a minimum requirement of 926 hours and, at this level, the apprentice will be paid more. Do the maths.
No sensible employer makes this kind of investment unless they have a colleague with great potential but a significant skills shortfall. I’m pleased to know many employers who regularly make such investments, and the returns to their organisations and colleagues are huge.
However, I fear this is not the case across the sector. I suspect that, too often, the skills gap is narrow or significant off-the-job training is taking place outside normal paid hours.
I bet I’m not the only person who has come across degree apprentices who get six hours a week of study time at work but also need to study at the weekend (and not just on an occasional basis). I’m sorry but they are not apprentices.
To free up money for more apprenticeships for young people and for older people with significant skills needs, the government needs to ask:
- How many apprentices are doing significant amounts of study in their own, unpaid time?
- How many apprentices are not actually undertaking the minimum required amount of off-the-job study (regardless of what might be recorded)?
This is fiddly work. It means having honest conversations with employers, apprentices and providers. It may cause some pain, even embarrassment. And it’s harder than simply drawing a line through “inappropriate” apprenticeships or putting in place more age restrictions.
But it’s the right thing to do.
Age restrictions and de-funding would capture some ineligible apprentices but also harm eligible apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with “squiggly” careers and later-life career changers. It would be unfair on the many fantastic employers already investing more than the minimum and following the rules.
And so, if we are to ensure access to great apprenticeships for those who need them, and maximise the impact of apprenticeships on our economy, it is work that needs to be done.
Your thoughts