Strengthen Apprenticeships, Don’t Water Them Down

It’s National Apprenticeship week, with events and activities happening around the country to celebrate their success. Despite numbers dropping following the introduction of the levy, they remain very popular in public opinion, and command cross-party support. Apprenticeships continue to provide tens of thousands of job opportunities with free training, which gives jobseekers a chance to get started and earn real money, as well as developing their skills further.

But right now there is a current of anxiety running through those who deliver apprenticeship training and those who manage the system. The recent defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships, along with the weak start to the new Foundation Apprenticeships – just 36 starts in the first quarter – is hardly raising confidence in the government’s strategy, now the responsibility of the DWP. It’s too early to evaluate the effect of other initiatives, such as the decision to make training free for SMEs taking on young apprentices. But what is the DWP planning next? And what will be the impact on the future of apprenticeships?

Despite their high profile, they are quite rightly just one component in a broader toolkit of training opportunities for young and old skill seekers, hopefully soon to have new options added from the Growth & Skills Levy. They are part of an eco-system of technical and vocational training in England, which includes boot camps, sector work academies, Applied Generals, T levels, HTQs, and from next academic year when the LLE launches, modular versions of a selection of higher education vocational courses. If it sounds complicated, it’s because it is! Years of incremental reforms under successive governments have left us with a jigsaw of pieces, some of which fit readily with each other and some of which don’t.

The apprenticeship sector can only look on as these interconnected components are re-engineered with as yet unknown repercussions, and hope that any further policy moves enhance, rather than undermine, the progress that has been made since the Richards Review thirteen years ago. Much of that progress has been based on strengthening the apprenticeship brand by ensuring standards are high, delivery is top quality, and training is relevant, in-depth, and up-to-date, giving trainees and employers greater confidence in its value. Anything that weakens this branding must be viewed as a retrograde step. It’s worth quoting at length from the report Foreword that Doug Richards wrote, because it’s uncannily relevant to the current policy debate:

“We are wrong to think apprenticeship is the only effective form of vocational training, which must be stretched to fill every task. Training to improve the skills of someone who has been in their job for some time, or is not yet ready to commence a job, are vital in their own terms, and, in certain circumstances, these forms of training merit the support of Government. But they require different models; imposing an apprenticeship model on these functions risks delivering poorer value for money, the wrong approach to training, and risks distracting apprenticeships from their core purpose.”

This is as true today as it was in 2012.

So what would be the right way to reform the system to address the two big challenges: the decline in take-up of apprenticeships amongst the 16-19 age group, particularly at Level 2 (which links to the NEETs issue); and the urgent need to deliver training to those already in work to boost company performance (which links to the productivity and growth problem)?

There’s a strong case for taking all 16-19 level 2 apprenticeships out of the levy entirely, and funding training providers directly for them. This would have the considerable extra benefit of freeing up levy resources to expand other apprenticeship provision and fund the much-needed additional training options promised under the Growth & Skills Levy. Yes, it would increase ESFA annual spending, but this would be substantially offset by reducing the money spent on benefits to sustain the overlarge NEETs cohort.

It would also revive and simplify the market for young apprentices, especially if the per capita funding rates were increased from the current low levels. Employers and trainers will testify that providing training for teenagers requires much more than just teaching technical skills; trainees lacking in skills and confidence need individual wraparound support to keep them focused and motivated. Setting basic rates at half the £8,000 average for 16-19 classroom students would enable providers to offer this. In this model, employers would pay nothing, but be expected to provide consistent mentoring and support for trainees in the workplace, and applicants would apply initially to local providers – just as they do for other training pathways - who would then give them career guidance, and place them with willing and appropriate employers.

To tackle the in-work training challenge, the Growth & Skills levy must begin to support a range of non-apprenticeship opportunities, including funding modules of HTQs, and a new range of short stackable courses at levels 1-3, with online and blended options. This should include English and maths; IT, programming, and AI; Green skills, and a range of technical units linked to Industrial Strategy priorities.

The emphasis throughout should remain on ensuring high quality training, through setting strong national standards and closely monitoring provider adherence to them, as is the case with apprenticeships. We mustn’t dilute and weaken the apprenticeship brand, which as the celebrations this week demonstrate, remains strong. Instead we should ensure that all government-subsidised technical and vocational training is infused with apprenticeship-like strength and quality.