The long and short of it is apprenticeships must deliver

Last month saw the announcement of some of the most significant changes to the apprenticeship system in England since those introduced following the Richard review over a decade earlier. Among them was a commitment to reduce the minimum duration of an apprenticeship from 12 to eight months, which education secretary Bridget Phillipson believes provides “the right balance between speed and quality, helping achieve our number one mission to grow the economy.” 

The twelve month minimum duration requirement was first introduced in 2012 as part of a wider set of measures to improve the depth and quality of apprenticeship training. The argument made by the government at the time was that ‘by ensuring they last between one and four years, we are not only giving employers what they say they want but also giving confidence back to everyone who has questioned the growth in shorter apprenticeships’.

You don’t have to spend long working in this sector to see the same issues come around again!

The requirement for a minimum duration of an apprenticeship is, of course, somewhat arbitrary. But what is critically important is that whatever their length, apprenticeships should be designed and delivered to develop competence. This is vitally important for employers, whose success depends on having a skilled, capable workforce with the right knowledge, skills and behaviours. It is critical too for individuals looking to enter and progress in a skilled occupation, and improve their long-term earnings and labour market security.

It is also true that developing competency takes time. And while it is clearly possible to gain competency in some occupations in less than a year, in others achieving full occupational competency will take much longer.

Several employer-led sector skills bodies have cautiously welcomed the commitment to trial shorter apprenticeships where this does not compromise competency, and have begun to identify options that could usefully be piloted – including in green energy, film and TV production and the rail industry. But they are also keenly aware of where a shorter minimum duration may well deliver the knowledge, but not the skills and behaviours required by that industry.

There are risks too that shorter apprenticeships reduce opportunities for progression for individuals by weakening the initial competency base on which the apprentice can build on throughout their career. Drawing on the expertise of sector skills bodies will be crucial as the government identifies and pilots this change.

More broadly, there is clearly a vital need, and significant employer demand, for high quality workplace training that can be delivered in less than a year. While apprenticeships have a valuable and important role in developing workforce skills, they are not the only – nor always the most appropriate – means of doing so. If we are to protect recent hard-won gains to the reputation and profile of apprenticeships, then we are likely to be better served by flexing what can be funded through a reformed growth and skills levy rather than solely looking to flex the apprenticeship model to meet the broad and varied training needs of industry.

Whether the recently announced proposed reduction in minimum duration ultimately proves to be a positive change that unleashes economic growth and individual opportunity, or a negative one that undermines the status of apprenticeships and further widens the vocational skills gap with our international competitors, is yet to be seen. We must do all that we can to ensure that it is the former, whilst not losing sight of the greater opportunity to invest in a wider range of vital skills training.