QUA0071

Written evidence submitted by the 5% Club

 

 

Overarching position and key points

 

The 5% Club’s members are broadly supportive of the Apprenticeship Levy’s objectives, however, in our view, the legislation lacks nuance. “Industry” is not a single entity and a one-size-fits-all approach is therefore is unlikely to result in either the number or the quality of apprentices the economy needs.

 

Employers of all sizes need confidence that providers will deliver the highest-quality apprenticeship training, while for those undertaking them, apprenticeships should be a reliable route to an enhanced, meaningful career. In particular, for smaller companies with fewer resources to navigate the system and undertake due diligence in relation to the quality of provision, the poor quality of service provided by some is negatively impacting their experience of taking on an apprentice and making it less likely that they will do so again. At a macro level, not being able to rely on high quality provision undermines the value of apprenticeships to both employers and recruits.

 

This submission has been produced following interviews and consultation with a range of our members, representing different sectors and business sizes, and based in different parts of the country.

 

Responses to the Committee’s questions

 

The quality of current provision, how this varies by sector, level and region, and the impact of this on learner outcomes.

 

  1. The 5% Club supports the principle of 20% dedicated time set aside for learning. However, this, in itself is of course not enough to guarantee quality learning. This time must be spent meaningfully in high-quality training and that will look different depending on the apprenticeship and the sector.

 

  1. In terms of what is meant by ‘quality’, for our members, who are all employers, it means the provision of robust theoretical knowledge which effectively complements the practical, on-the-job training they themselves provide. It must help to equip the apprentice with all of the knowledge and skills they need to be “work ready” at the end of the apprenticeship and ensure they can access a sustainable career. Although no specific research was undertaken, clearly there is a related impact on the potential for the apprentice in each case to be offered long-term employment on completion of training.

 

  1. For employers without the resources to undertake quality assurance of the provision in advance, there is no guarantee that the provision will be of the standard required. There are a number of small and inexperienced companies without strong track records which are approved on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers to deliver training. For smaller companies in particular, the system can seem confusing and the lack of quality assurance can deter employers from fully engaging with apprenticeships, meaning that fewer are available.

 

  1. The impact on learner outcomes is significant if the quality cannot be consistently relied upon. At a macro level, not being able to rely on high quality provision undermines the value of apprenticeships for both employers and recruits.

 

  1. Part of the problem relates to the quality of lecturers, which in turn relates to their recruitment and retention and the fact that Further Education is not viewed as being of equal value to Higher Education: lecturers are not paid a substantial amount[i], although those in vocation subjects in particular have to qualify and learn a trade before becoming a lecturer; and the sector has seen significant funding reductions the past five years, resulting in class sizes increasing and the number of courses decreasing. Staff turnover in further education colleges is high, and there are shortages of lecturers in key areas, including engineering and construction[ii]. In our view, these issues must be addressed. Further Education has a crucial role in supporting vocational training and lifelong learning: training the next generation of high quality apprentices need high quality lecturers.

 

  1. Furthermore, accessing good quality provision locally is challenging. Smaller businesses in particular, but also employers training for specialised, highly skilled roles, cannot always find the training they need in their area, especially outside London and the southeast. In smaller towns and cities, provision and the quality of provision is inconsistent, with more than one of our members describing it as “pot luck”. To access good quality training can require transporting trainees to a specific college elsewhere, and paying for their accommodation. One of our rurally-based members, who had four apprenticeships available this year, highlighted that two of the places were not filled as the candidates who were offered and accepted the roles later declined them on the basis that it would take them too long to get to college – in one case an hour and three quarters in each direction, due to poor local transport. This is in spite of the fact that the apprenticeship being offered paid three times the national minimum wage for apprentices. For employers also, there are cases where having to pay for accommodation and transport, which cannot be reclaimed via the Apprenticeship Levy, makes some apprenticeship programmes untenable, again, resulting in fewer options for those wishing to take up an apprenticeship.

 

  1. Several of our members mentioned that the providers they are dealing with are short of resource and are not as well informed about the Levy as employers would like them to be, seeming unaware of everything that was required of them. For example, some have not yet got things such as data protection policies in place, which means that even where there is technically provision locally, in some cases there is a delay in being able to use it. Some improvement will happen organically as new, stronger links between training providers and employers are built and refined and as Trade Associations begin to identify and promote best practice.

 

  1. Quality-wise, many providers still using frameworks and are having to do a “botch-job” due to the new standards not being signed off. Our members felt that this is likely to impact quality, especially on Level 4 apprenticeships. While Level 2 and 3 are based on what has been delivered historically, Level 4 is not. This is resulting in providers having to use material that is not quite right but is the best available. This will inevitably have an impact on those apprentices going through the system at the moment, in terms of the job role and learning content alignment. Employers were told in the Spring that work would accelerate to get the standards ready for September 2017, but that did not happen. This must, in our view, be addressed urgently.

 

The effectiveness of the quality monitoring system, in particular the role and capacity of Ofsted.

 

  1. Ofsted is viewed by our members as being a good indicator of quality where an inspection has just taken place. However, the length of time between inspections and the fact that the quality of training can go downhill quite quickly with the departure of a key individual, means that an Ofsted inspection undertaken over a year ago cannot be relied upon - more needs to be done to ensure poor-quality provision is being addressed.

 

  1. Information on quality must also be accessible and relevant to employers. For example, in some cases, where a provider offers a wide range of education and training from apprenticeships in business administration to advanced engineering and full-time degrees, the quality of provision relevant to a specific employer may only make up a small part of the overall Ofsted grade, providing little useful information without additional research.

 

  1. Several of our members raised the issue of consistency. Given the large number of providers and of specialist apprenticeships, there was concern that Ofsted may not have the level of understanding required to audit provision effectively and ensure that it is graded consistently across the country.

 

  1. Furthermore, given the significant increase in the number of new providers and assessments which Ofsted – and Ofqual – now have to regulate, our members are concerned that the quality monitoring system may need additional resource and that more regular inspections may be required.

 

  1. Employers must be able to rely on the quality monitoring system. We were concerned to note the plans to increase the minimum standard achievement threshold for providers, to ensure high quality training, were reversed. Although getting as many people through the system as possible is a key aim, the training must be of high quality: quantity must not come at the expense of quality.

 

The role of the Education and Skills Funding Agency in ensuring value for money, and the impact of different funding models.

 

  1. Our members described the ESFA as “doing their level best with very limited resource”. We believe that it will, once fully operational, play a valuable role. However, there should have been a transition period to enable it to gear up and start delivering.

 

  1. In particular, it was overly optimistic that it would take 12 months for new apprenticeships to be approved. The new Institute for Apprenticeships has found it takes longer than expected to work through approvals for providers and courses. The failure to approve new apprenticeships is having a damaging impact on the ability industry has to recruit new apprentices, since Levy cannot be claimed until an apprenticeship has been properly approved. Some of our members are recruiting in spite of this and are paying the costs themselves. Others are simply not recruiting in January 2018 for a September 2018 start, as they will not be able to reclaim the costs and cannot afford to pay for both the Levy and the training costs.

 

  1. While our members were, overall, confident in ESFA over the long term, the issue of funding bands was raised. Given that the amount being charged at all levels is the maximum that the funding bands allow, concern was raised that ESFA may not have the technical knowledge to assess providers and drill down into the figures to conclude that the course being provided is actually costing the amount they say and is worth it. Without the capacity, resource and knowledge to analyse this, the system will not be transparent and there can be no assurance that employers and taxpayers are getting value for money.

 

Quality and oversight of training provided by subcontractors.

 

  1. Several of our members have raised concerns over abuses of the system in relation to subcontractors. In particular, the use of “brokers”, who act as a clearing house, pairing employers / apprentices with training providers. While the bulk of any fee goes to the training provider for carrying out the actual training and assessment, the broker retains a portion of it, however, there does not seem to be sufficient oversight of these companies. Our members have experience of these companies providing bad or incorrect advice to smaller companies. We believe that subcontractors should be subject to inspection on a systematic basis and we welcome the Select Committee’s interest in this area.

 

Quality of training received by the socially disadvantaged, and barriers to them undertaking this training.

 

  1. Many of our members are doing important work in this space and several raised the issue of the system itself putting in place barriers to enabling those from all social backgrounds to access apprenticeships. For example, employers are not able to access funding for apprentices who do not have the right grades in key subjects. One of our members pays for strong candidates to take their maths GCSE again, for example, but states that this does not make sense for apprenticeships which do not require maths and does nothing to help break the cycle where people are disadvantaged because of their background. Many employers would not pay for this and those from disadvantaged backgrounds may not know how to or be able to afford to do this themselves.

 

  1. Another of our members, based in Scarborough (a Government social mobility “cold spot”) highlighted that, while there are a number of providers in the region doing admin and finance, they are having a problem finding training provision for specialised areas and for higher apprenticeships. This is in spite of the fact that there is a large amount of coordinated activity in the region due to the social mobility issues, about which our member was very positive.

 

  1. The 5% Club recently published a paper entitled Bridges and Ladders: social mobility and a skilled workforce[1], which sets out our views on the twin issues of social mobility and skills.

 

  1. We believe that as the UK begins to shape its new identity as an independent trading nation outside the EU, it needs a long-term strategy to simultaneously improve social mobility, and boost its ability to compete globally by ensuring access to the skilled workforce business needs. Proper social mobility and effective education and training are two key elements for addressing the UK’s productivity problem, which will be even more acute if we are to compete as ‘global Britain’ post-Brexit and if we are to have the high-skill economy we need to take advantage of the opportunities the digital revolution offers.

 

  1. If the UK is to ensure inclusive growth, we need government and business leaders to work together to find ways to improve social mobility at the same time as ensuring a skilled workforce. These issues must be addressed as part of a holistic industrial strategy which considers a range of skills-related issues, including the need to train people for the jobs of the future which may not exist yet today and to provide them with adaptable skills.

 

  1. We must improve the transition from school to work for all young people, but particularly for those who do not go on to study A Levels and Higher Education, a group disproportionately made up of those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

  1. There are a number of recommendations identified in this paper:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About The 5% Club

 

The 5% Club is uniquely an employer-led not-for-profit organisation founded in 2013. It works with UK employers and key influencers to inspire, educate and retain a growing body of people into “earn and learn” placements in order to increase the number of apprentices, sponsored students and graduate trainees.

 

The goal of the Club is to increase the employment and career prospects of today’s youth and equip the UK with the skilled workforce it needs to compete globally. Members aspire to having at least 5% of their UK work force in “earn and learn” positions within 5 years of joining. Progress is measured annually and reported by the member in its Annual Report or equivalent.

 

In setting up The 5% Club, we wanted to encourage leading firms of all sizes invest in a generation - to put their money where their mouth is and set a clear example for many more employers to follow. We believe that the aim should be to build a much broader way for people to enter the job market or reskill, moving away from the entrenched university focus and create a world-class vocational system in the UK that is on a par with, if not better than, systems such as that in Germany.

 

The 5% Club believes that employers are best placed to identify the skills that the economy will need in the future and best placed to drive high quality, relevant training which can be the bedrock to a long and fulfilling career. By joining The 5% Club, employers demonstrate to their customers, employees and potential recruits that they are a business committed to developing their workforce and building the skills the UK economy will need to thrive.

 

 

January 2018

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.5percentclub.org.uk/bridges-ladders-social-mobility-skilled-workforce/

[i] The Association of Colleges College Workforce Survey 2016 shows that the average lecturer salary is £30,100

[ii] The Association of Colleges Autumn Budget 2017 submission