APP0033

Written evidence submitted by Professor Alison Fuller and Professor Lorna Unwin, UCL Institute of Education

Executive Summary

1. Apprenticeship has become a predominantly assessment-led programme for employed adults to be gain accreditation for existing skills. This explains why the highest volumes are found in health and social care, management, customer service and business administration. We are wasting an important opportunity to build apprenticeship as a robust pathway for young people, as a vehicle for improving productivity and as means to increase the capacity of vocational teachers and workplace trainers. The apprenticeship statistics should be a wake-up call for the economy. 

2. We need to capitalise on the expertise of those employers and providers who understand that apprenticeship is a sophisticated model of learning. Chasing arbitrary numerical targets and diverting resources to manage a levy will only exacerbate the ‘anything goes’ approach, which has created a highly inconsistent and confusing array of provision.
3. The new apprenticeship ‘Standards’ will not, in themselves, address the long-standing limitation of the assessment-led approach. The evidence from over a quarter of a century of relying on this approach as the primary guarantee of apprenticeship quality shows that it drives employers and providers to focus on compliance.
4. We need to develop an occupation-based approach so that apprenticeship becomes part of a ladder of (educational and occupational) progression and its value is widely recognised.  As a consequence, the training programme (on and off-the-job) would be aimed at ensuring apprentices had a level of expertise to enable them to adapt to change and continue to learn. The programme should clearly be additional to the training that employers would already be undertaking.
    

1.              Introduction

1.1               Our aim is to draw the Sub-Committee’s attention to the key barriers preventing the growth of the type of apprenticeships we need in order to: a) address the country’s ‘skills gap’; b) enable more employers to realise the potential of apprenticeship for business improvement; and c) provide a high quality pathway for young people to develop the occupational skills and knowledge for employment and lifelong learning.  We draw on our substantial body of research since the introduction of Modern Apprenticeship in 1994. In 2008/09, we acted as Special Advisers to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee for their Scrutiny of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. Our research has enabled us to develop an analytical framework for employers, training providers and colleges for enhancing quality in apprenticeships[1].

1.2              We remain very concerned about the continued failure to capitalise on the excellent practice that exists in apprenticeship in the UK. Instead of building on the expertise of those employers and providers who understand that apprenticeship is a sophisticated model of learning, successive governments have driven down quality by chasing arbitrary numerical targets. The ‘anything goes’ approach has created a highly inconsistent and confusing array of provision, yet its official sanctioning under the apprenticeship ‘brand’ means that: a) young people, their parents and guardians and the general public are being misled[2]; and b) we are wasting an important opportunity to deploy apprenticeship as a vehicle for supporting those employers who currently lack the experience to increase capacity and productivity in their workplaces. Apprenticeship cannot be understood as a one-dimensional phenomenon; it is not a ‘qualification’ or a ‘course’ or a just a ‘job’. Its power lies in bringing together the employer’s need to sustain and refresh workplace capacity and the individual’s aspiration to become a recognised member of an occupational community with the human, social and cultural capital to change and adapt in the future.

1.3              In addressing the Sub-Committee’s eight points, we highlight the interrelated nature of the challenges involved in building a robust apprenticeship system.
 

2. The 3 million target, the ‘skills gap’, the levy, quality, progression and standards

2.1              Achieving the 3 million target will be very easy if we continue to allow apprentices to be recruited as existing employees (‘conversions’) with much of their apprenticeship devoted to accrediting their existing skills. Our recent research funded by the Nuffield Foundation shows how this ‘assessment-led’ approach accounts for the substantial rise since the mid-2000s in the numbers of ‘adult apprentices’.[3] The majority of apprenticeship registrations are on the lowest level programme (Level 2), consisting of skills and qualifications associated with semi-skilled jobs or roles. This is not generating the knowledge and skills required for the advanced technical and higher level occupations necessary to make productivity gains and fill the country’s skill gaps. The introduction of the levy will not change these practices and could exacerbate them.

2.2              Why are the majority of apprenticeships in Health and Social Care, Business Administration, Customer Service and Management. Is this where the country’s skill gaps lie?  Survey data estimates that the ‘conversion rate’ in some service sectors such as Health and Social Care, where older apprentices dominate, is as high as 90 per cent. The use of narrowly focused competence-based qualifications has meant that it is possible (and certainly at Level 2) for an individual to complete an apprenticeship largely through having their existing skills accredited with very little new training involved. This approach underpinned Train to Gain. Although the evaluations identified deadweight and the lack of training[4], there was no official recognition that the assessment-led approach needed serious attention.

2.3              We are not arguing against ‘adult apprenticeships’ (classed as registrations of people aged 25 and over). There is a strong case for creating opportunities for adults to retrain/upskill and gain qualifications. There is a fundamental difference, however, between apprenticeship and the type of training that anyone should expect to form part of a job, including an assessment of an individual’s existing skills at induction. Our research revealed that many adult employees are eager to improve their skills (including Maths and English) so they can be more productive. They are, however, suspicious of being channeled into a ‘scheme’ that may give them a qualification, but only allows them to tread water. From the employer’s perspective, ‘conversions’ will only address skill gaps and shortages if the employee is engaged in substantial retraining and upskilling.

2.4              The introduction of the new apprenticeship ‘Standards’ does not address the long-standing limitation of the assessment-led approach. Specifying an apprenticeship in terms of an end-point Standard again focuses attention on assessment without an equivalent emphasis on the actual training to be undertaken. Furthermore, there is no mandatory requirement for the new Standards to include a recognised qualification as part of the apprenticeship. This jeopardises the portability and currency of apprenticeship for educational and career progression, and for wider employer recognition across the sector or occupation. It makes it more difficult for apprentices, as well as future employers and education providers, to understand the wider ‘exchange value’ and applicability of what has been achieved. A key feature of what we have called ‘expansive apprenticeships’ is that they provide a solid platform for progression to further or higher education and, or the next step of the relevant occupational career ladder. A lack of transparency and clarity about how apprenticeship articulates with other opportunities risks diluting its appeal particularly to young people and their families, but also to those employers who want to invest in training that enables them to achieve both their current and projected business goals.

2.5              Understanding the consequences of the ‘assessment-led’ approach is vital given the way apprenticeships have become divided into a hierarchy, giving the impression of a series of stand-alone ‘products’. The impoverished content of some vocational qualifications makes it difficult for apprentices to progress beyond Level 2 or 3 (both within their sector, and also across sectors). Level 2 apprentices may not have matured sufficiently to find decent employment or developed the necessary capability to enable them to progress. The highly gendered nature of apprenticeships means this is a particular problem for young women in low-status, low-paid jobs in service sector occupations, which deliver mainly level 2 apprenticeships[5].  As our research has shown, the variability within qualification ‘levels’ undermines both their labour market and educational currency.[6]

2.6              The categorisation of apprenticeships by level (Level 2, 3, Higher and now ‘degree’ apprenticeships) undermines the powerful concept of apprenticeship as an integrated approach to developing occupational expertise. Classifying provision that stops at Level 2 (with no automatic entitlement to move on to Level 3) as apprenticeship puts an artificial break or glass ceiling on progression. Where there is the opportunity for progression to the next level, individuals may have to complete two, three or four apprenticeships en route to becoming ‘competent’. This accounts for the confusion in the official statistics where a number of apprenticeship registrations (known as ‘starts’ in the statistics) may relate to only one individual. On the surface, the hierarchy might seem to be straightforward. Yet, when we look within the ‘levels’, we see a further free-for-all. In STEM-related apprenticeships, the fact that apprentices from Level 2 to Level 5 can be classed as a ‘technician’ shows that there is no shared understanding of this term and what it might signify for the level of skills required in an occupational field.[7] In contrast, when apprenticeships are linked to occupational fields supported by institutional regulation and professional registration, we find much stronger articulation between the content of apprenticeship and the occupational career structures.

2.7              Given the high volumes of service sector jobs in the economy (and their dominance in the number of apprenticeship registrations), we need to examine whether the institutional and professional foundations that drive quality in apprenticeships in fields such as accountancy, engineering, and some of the bespoke crafts, could be replicated in service-related and emerging fields.   Central to that thinking should be the recognition that apprenticeship needs to be seen as one of a number of approaches to skill formation for young people.  In countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, a mix of full-time and part-time vocational education and training programmes (which include work placements) sit alongside apprenticeship so that the latter’s distinctiveness can be protected.  This also means that shorter forms of training (‘just-in-time’) can be provided to meet the needs of adults in the workforce and those seeking to re-enter the labour market and/or retrain.

2.8              In the Sub-Committee’s Terms of Reference, the chairs of the Education and BIS Select Committees refer to apprenticeship as an important route for young people. Given that the largest age-group of all apprenticeship ‘starts’ is those aged 25 and over (43% in 2014-15), we urge the Sub-Committee to look beyond the default assumptions that not enough young people are applying for apprenticeships and/or that they do not possess the ‘right attitudes’. As we have argued above, the current practice of allowing adult conversions militates against a growth in the number of places for young people.
 

3. Institutional architecture and apprenticeship recruitment

3.1              We are sceptical that the creation of two new bodies - the Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) and the Apprenticeship Delivery Board - will address the challenges we have raised in this submission.  Debates during the passage of the Enterprise Bill raised concerns about the IfA’s independence as the Secretary of State will: a) appoint the chair and the non-executive members, and will determine the terms of the appointments; b) receive all standards and assessment plans; and c) be able to require the IfA to take on further functions relating to apprenticeships. The Government rejected an amendment by Labour that the IfA Board should comprise a range of stakeholders including employers, education and training providers, Local Authorities and ‘relevant’ trades unions on the grounds that this would prevent the IfA from being employer-led. However, given the controlling role proposed for the Secretary of State, it is not at all clear what ‘employer-led’ will actually mean in practice.

3.2              The UK lacks the partnership-based sectoral and local architecture that supports and governs apprenticeship in countries such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. These countries recognise the need to combine the shared expertise of employers, training providers, and professional/sectoral bodies. Standards for apprenticeship are developed through consultation and, hence, the partners share responsibility for ensuring quality. The new Apprenticeship Delivery Board is not being positioned to operate in this way as its members will act as advocates for apprenticeship to help achieve the 3 million target. The Board does not currently have a clear remit to focus on improving the quality and consistency of training across the programme. The ambivalence shown by successive governments towards sector bodies (e.g. the sector skills councils) means the UK lacks an institutional layer that plays an important role in other countries.

3.3   There has been surprisingly little discussion about the role of inspection (including that of Ofsted, Ofqual and the QAA in the new institutional landscape). The IfA will have a quality assurance function, but its focus will be on the Standards, assessment plans, and end-point assessment arrangements and not the supervision, training processes and practices that constitute the apprenticeship experience itself. The assumption is that if the Standards and assessment specifications are quality assured, then (all) apprenticeships will be of a consistent quality.  However, the evidence from over a quarter of a century of relying on an assessment-based approach as the primary guarantee of quality shows that this is inadequate as it drives employers and providers to focus on compliance. We need to revisit the role inspection could play in raising understanding about what counts as a high quality training within apprenticeship across diverse occupations, as well as rooting out provision that is primarily assessment-led and that falls short for both apprentices and their employers.

3.4              Our research shows that the best training providers and employers work together in what we have termed a ‘relational approach’[8]. Excellent examples of this can be found in the work of Group Training Associations (GTAs) who work with both large employers and SMEs. This approach starts with a conversation about the pressures and possibilities in the business environment, the way goods and services are produced, and the organisation’s plans going forward. Some employers have the capacity and experience to co-design apprenticeships that stretch and build the capacity of everyone concerned, but others need much more support to enable them to make apprenticeship part of their business strategy. A national programme of peer support led by providers and employers who run quality apprenticeships is required and would have a much bigger impact than the invention of new top-down organisations.

3.5              Without a relational approach, the danger is that training providers are more likely to adopt a default position of offering ‘conversion’ style apprenticeships and mainly assessment-led forms of delivery which bring in the numbers, but require little from employers by way of training. This lack of ambition means that despite the aspiration of the Trailblazer initiative, quality will continue to play second fiddle to quantity. We have long argued that employers need to play a much more proactive role in the design, delivery and funding of apprenticeships[9].  Moreover, the new Standards for apprenticeships must have national credibility and reflect the skill requirements in contemporary workplaces. They should, however, also look to the future to ensure apprentices and their employers push their expertise beyond the here and now. To achieve this, we need a relational approach involving a range of experts whose goal is to keep the conversation alive and receptive to new ideas.

4. The value and limitation of comparisons with other countries

4.1              It is important to stress that all countries face constant challenges in trying to maintain a consistent apprenticeship system. In many other European countries, apprenticeships sit firmly within the structure of upper secondary education.  They are demanding in terms of the technical and general education components because both the state and employers understand they will benefit from having well-educated and trained employees who can adapt to and help shape the future of work. This strongly shared commitment to quality creates the framework for a robust and publicly trusted system, which includes: a) investment in the training and professional updating of vocational teachers and workplace trainers; b) consistent and transparent systems for careers information and guidance; and c) a consensual approach to reform/development of the system.  Trying to import individual features of other countries’ systems is problematic because their strength stems from being part of an interconnected and coherent whole.

4.2              There are examples in the UK of excellent apprenticeships and vocational education programmes for young people that reflect the characteristics found in other countries with strong national systems. Whilst we can and should always explore good practice elsewhere in the world, we should concentrate much more on learning about and from our own high quality programmes.  If we continue with the current inconsistent, target-driven and compliance-based approach, we will not reap the benefits that flow from making high quality apprenticeships part of an integrated strategy to improve workplace management, productivity, and individual life chances.
 

5. Recommendations

• Ensure all apprentices develop a substantial amount of new occupational expertise including the capability to progress further and adapt to change.

• Strengthen the articulation between the levels so that Level 2 and 3 apprentices do not hit arbitrary glass ceilings.

• Capitalise on the best practice in every sector and invest in a national programme of peer support led by providers and employers who run quality apprenticeships.

• Use inspection as a means to identify the characteristics of high quality apprenticeship across diverse occupations and contribute to a national Research and Development (R&D) resource base to support improvement.

March 2016