Last week’s proposals by Baroness Alison Wolf to devolve apprenticeship funding to local leaders is not only misguided but risks undoing progress made in creating an employer-led apprenticeship system and taking us back 10 years.
There are, of course, ways in which we could improve the apprenticeship system.
Some of these the government are already making progress on – foundation and shorter duration apprenticeships are, for example, a positive step forward; others such as ensuring the overall programme budget matches the apprenticeship levy require additional funding to be released.
That’s not to say that metro mayors should not have a voice on skills needs – their input is valuable. However, giving commissioning powers to local leaders on apprenticeships would be a significant backward step.
Local leaders should influence, not control, apprenticeships.
Having read the proposals, I strongly suggest it’s doubtful that Alison Wolf has bothered to actually ask employers what they want and if they would be willing to juggle such a new postcode lottery system either.
Expertise and insight
The foundation of the current apprenticeship system is the principle that employers are in the strongest position to determine their workforce needs.
It is employers who have the expertise and insight to align training with real-world requirements. They are best placed to ensure that apprenticeships deliver the skills businesses need to thrive.
Shifting commissioning to local leaders would undermine this employer-led approach.
Local authorities and regional bodies, while well-intentioned, do not possess the same direct understanding of industry-specific skills gaps or future workforce demands.
This is particularly problematic in a rapidly evolving economy where adaptability and responsiveness are paramount.
Costs and inefficiencies
One of the most glaring flaws in devolving funding to local leaders is the inevitable increase in administrative costs. Currently, 98 per cent of the apprenticeship budget is already spent.
Adding additional layers of governance, commissioning, oversight and bureaucracy would only eat further into a budget that is already under pressure.
This would reduce the funds available for the actual delivery of training, undermining the primary purpose of the programme.
At a time when every pound of apprenticeship funding needs to be maximised it is hard to justify siphoning off yet more resources to fund unnecessary layers of local administration.
Bid writing nightmare
If funding were to be devolved to local leaders, then training providers would inevitably face the prospect of a bidding war for regional or local funding contracts. This would result in a costly and time-consuming process, with providers forced to dedicate significant resources to bid writing rather than delivering high-quality training.
Moreover, the competitive nature of a bid-based system introduces uncertainty. History tells us there is no guarantee that the providers who are best placed to deliver apprenticeships are successful and that they then get the right amounts they need to meet their employers’ needs.
This misalignment between prime providers, allocations and actual needs would destabilise the apprenticeship system, making it harder for both providers and employers to plan effectively.
Fragmented and bureaucratic
Devolving apprenticeship funding to local leaders would create such a fragmented, bureaucratic system that it would hamper employer engagement.
Unlike the current system, which allows access to a wide range of providers, a devolved model would restrict options and result in reduced choice. It also risks undermining the effectiveness of apprenticeships and employer confidence in the system.
Rather than devolving control and letting apprenticeships take a different and scary direction, efforts should continue to focus on making the current approach more seamless for employers.
The current apprenticeship service is far from a perfect platform and there is certainly still more that can be done to improve it, especially for small employers. But devolving control and commissioning to local and regional authorities would be a huge mistake.
I totally agree with everything Ben says here. In particular, the comment about Professor Wolf not talking to employers, as a similar thing happened in 2011 when she concluded that work experience in KS4 was not valuable, as virtually no young people go into work at16. (Recommendation 21)
At the time, I queried the evidence basis for this recommendation via an FOI, and discovered that the only research completed was to talk to 12 headteachers, 8 of which were from London.
Devolving Apprenticeship funding would be expensive and bureaucratic. Local hubs and Apprenticeship Networks have an important role, to be the independent brokers locally, and there may be an argument for funding that, but they do not need control over the budget.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here…are employers really in charge of the Apprenticeship system? Are those potentially losing their Levy funding (including solicitors, accountants etc) for level 7 jumping for joy?
They are ‘in charge’ until the Government don’t like something, then they take their ball away from them and pop it.
There are a lot of statements in this piece about devolved funding without a jot of evidence to back them up. More bureaucratic? Increased costs? Fragmented? Hamper employer engagement?
Why would devolving Apprenticeship funding be so bad?
My experience has convinced me that a strong LOCAL offer is the best way to meet the needs of employers and residents. UKSPF funding has been devolved in Greater Manchester and has been used by Local Authorities to develop amazing NEET programmes that meet LOCAL need and engage with those hardest to help.
And guess what – limited administration costs, no bureaucracy and shock horror – they are really successful.