![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/people_GOV_UK_open_government_licence_v30.png\")
EDSK – a not-for-profit think tank registered in England and Wales \u2013 has issued a new investigation of apprenticeships, highlighting concerns and calling on government to restate and renew its commitment to apprenticeship standards.<\/p>\nEDSK – a not-for-profit think tank registered in England and Wales \u2013 has issued a new investigation of apprenticeships, highlighting concerns and calling on government to restate and renew its commitment to apprenticeship standards.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
EDSK writes:<\/p>\n
10 years ago, the Coalition Government commissioned the \u2018Richard Review\u2019 to ensure that apprenticeships in England were \u2018consistently delivering high quality training\u2019. The Review called for a package of reforms that aimed to deliver a \u2018world class\u2019 system, which centred around a new \u2018employer-led\u2019 approach that has allowed employers to control the design and provision of apprenticeships over the past decade. This report investigates what has happened to the quality of apprenticeships after ministers and civil servants sought to implement the Review\u2019s proposals.<\/p>\n
The Richard Review was clear that apprenticeships were \u2018most meaningful\u2019 for jobs requiring \u2018substantial training and high levels of skill\u2019 and that \u2018other forms of training\u2019 should be used to support individuals into lower-skilled jobs. A decade on, the apprenticeship system is still littered with low skill roles masquerading as \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 even though they clearly do not require \u2018substantial training\u2019 (despite this level of training being a mandatory element of all apprenticeships according to the Government).<\/p>\n
Numerous job adverts on the Government\u2019s own apprenticeship vacancy website (see pages 21-26) lay bare the low expectations of many \u2018apprenticeships\u2019. In the hospitality sector, learners can end up heating and serving precooked meals and pushing around a drinks and snacks trolley as a \u2018Food and Drink Apprentice\u2019, or washing, drying and ironing clothes as an \u2018Apprentice Housekeeper\u2019. Other low skill \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 can be found in offices who hire apprentices to answer phone calls and take messages for colleagues as well as leisure venues who recruit apprentices to greet customers, take bookings and serve soft drinks. None of these roles represent skilled occupations (another mandatory part of the Government\u2019s definition of an apprenticeship) and they typically offer just \u00a34.81 per hour \u2013 the apprenticeship minimum wage \u2013 in return for a poor experience.<\/p>\n
To emphasise how little skill these \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 require, employers often admit that these jobs can be performed with minimal training. \u2018Retail apprenticeships\u2019 have proved popular in many supermarkets and other outlets, even though employers state the same skills can be taught in just six weeks outside of the apprenticeship system. This absence of substantial and skilled training is equally evident in the \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 for driving delivery vans, working in a coffee shop and dog grooming among other roles, which typically require no more than a few weeks of training \u2013 thus confirming that a 12-month \u2018apprenticeship\u2019 is wasteful and misleading for potential recruits.<\/p>\n
The Richard Review criticised the use of apprenticeships to upskill existing staff or accredit their existing skills, calling it \u201cthe wrong approach to training and\u2026 distracting apprenticeships from their core purpose\u201d. Nevertheless, the Review\u2019s recommendation that such activities \u201cshould remain clearly distinct\u201d from apprenticeships has not been implemented. Over 40 per cent of \u2018apprentices\u2019 in 2020\/21 had been with their employer for over a year prior to starting their apprenticeship.<\/p>\n
The Review also warned that using apprenticeships to upskill staff would represent poor value for money. Even so, by far the most popular \u2018apprenticeship\u2019 in England is a training course to become a \u2018Team Leader\u2019, which has attracted around 90,000 learners over the last five years \u2013 almost 70 per cent more than any other apprenticeship. Employers can access \u00a34,500 for each employee enrolled on this course, despite a similar programme being available outside of the apprenticeship system for just \u00a31,300.<\/p>\n
In addition, the Richard Review objected to the \u201cdrift towards calling many things apprenticeships which, in fact, are not\u201d, adding that apprenticeships must be used for \u201creal and specific skilled occupations\u201d. However, many current \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 have nothing to do with real occupations, with some employers choosing instead to invent fake job titles to access apprenticeship funding. This includes training courses called \u2018Senior Leader\u2019 and \u2018Accountancy or Taxation Professional\u2019, with the latter absurdly claiming to encompass roles as diverse as accountants, tax advisers, auditors, management consultants and business advisors in a single \u2018apprenticeship\u2019. Such courses are not recognised jobs or occupations (yet another breach of the Government\u2019s definition of an apprenticeship) and are hugely expensive, with the \u2018Accountancy or Taxation Professional\u2019 consuming more funding than any other apprenticeship over the last five years at a cost of up to \u00a321,000 per \u2018apprentice\u2019.<\/p>\n
The Richard Review emphasised that off-the-job training \u201cadds value\u201d to the experience of apprentices by giving them \u201csafeguarded time away from their job to ensure they can do substantial training\u201d. Since the Review, apprentices have been entitled to a minimum of 20 per cent of their working hours to be spent on off-the-job training activities \u2013 equivalent to one day a week. Even so, one in five apprentices are not informed about this entitlement, with even lower awareness among hospitality and retail apprentices as well as entry-level apprenticeships more broadly. Worse still, more than half (54 per cent) of apprentices do not receive the minimum one-day-a-week of off-the-job training, and 30 per cent report receiving no training at all from their training provider during the entire working week.<\/p>\n
Even where off-the-job training is being delivered, it is often poor quality. The Richard Review had criticised training providers for \u201ctoo often\u201d restricting off-the-job training to \u201cself-guided learning\u201d by apprentices, yet little has been done since then to eradicate this problem. Under the current apprenticeship funding rules, training providers are allowed to count the \u201ctime spent [by apprentices] writing assignments\u201d (including homework tasks) as \u2018training\u2019 \u2013 an appalling distortion of what an apprenticeship is meant to entail, and an obvious loophole for unscrupulous providers to spend as little time and money as possible delivering genuine training while claiming the maximum available funding from government.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, the current funding rules place no restrictions on the amount of \u2018online learning\u2019 that can take place, meaning that apprentices can go weeks, if not months, without having any face-to-face contact with their training provider or receiving any direct training. Even \u2018degree apprenticeships\u2019 are being delivered by some Higher Education providers entirely through webinars, recorded lectures and online forums, with barely any face-to-face contact throughout the entire multi-year course. Apprentices are rarely made aware of such practices by their training provider before their apprenticeship commences.<\/p>\n
On-the-job training delivered by employers is a crucial component of apprenticeships, especially as 80 per cent of an apprentice\u2019s time is supposed to be spent in the workplace. The Richard Review heard from apprentices that on-the-job training improved their overall experience as they valued the \u201con-site application to achieve and embed\u201d their off-the-job learning, alongside \u201cwork-based time to build experience\u201d and having someone mentor them. Despite the value of this type of training, one in five (19 per cent) apprentices report receiving no on-the-job training at all from their employer, rising to one in four (26 per cent) for those on entry-level apprenticeships.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, the Richard Review emphasised the importance of creating a \u201cclear and common understanding of what is expected from the apprentice and the employer from the outset\u201d, yet employers and training providers are not required to provide apprentices with a curriculum or syllabus setting out what they will actually learn on their course. This means that prospective apprentices are left to make decisions about their future with barely any knowledge of what they are signing up to \u2013 something that would never be tolerated for university or A-level applicants. Denying apprentices access to detailed information about their training course also leaves them at risk of a poor-quality experience because they have no reference point for what training they should receive on their apprenticeship. The continued absence of a \u2018clear and common understanding\u2019 of what apprentices should learn is so pervasive that one in ten learners are unaware that they are even on an apprenticeship.<\/p>\n
The experience of apprentices with their employers also varies significantly across sectors. While the Richard Review was clear that apprenticeships are \u201ca form of education, based in the workplace\u201d, many apprentices are being denied the core education element of their programme. This is particularly common in social care and retail, where apprentices are often treated as \u201cworkers rather than learners\u201d and are given few opportunities to learn new skills during working hours. A lack of high-quality training from employers has been linked with low satisfaction levels among apprentices as well as an increased chance of them dropping out of their apprenticeship, with some apprentices leaving precisely because their employer \u201cprioritised their employee role over their apprenticeship requirements\u201d. The OECD has highlighted that England remains an international outlier by acting as if on-the-job training is a \u201cmarginal\u201d issue despite it representing \u201cthe traditional heart of apprenticeship\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Richard Review set out to ensure that apprenticeships in England consistently delivered high-quality training. A decade on, the evidence in this report shows that many apprentices are still being badly let down by the current system. From the outset, applicants are kept in the dark with little information about what an apprenticeship will offer them. Even after their apprenticeship begins, learners can find themselves working in low-skill low-level positions while being paid far less than the national minimum wage. At the same time, employers have taken advantage of the opportunity to create \u2018apprenticeships\u2019 out of fictitious job titles, which typically turn out to be little more than training courses for their existing employees. Regardless of which apprenticeship they have signed up to, apprentices across the country are also not receiving the necessary training from their employer or training provider, with many left largely to their own devices and receive no training at all.<\/p>\n
In light of these uncomfortable truths, it is perhaps unsurprising that almost half (47 per cent) of all apprentices are now dropping out before completing their course. A staggering 70 per cent of those who drop out report concerns about the quality of their apprenticeship \u2013 equivalent to around 115,000 apprentices a year. These concerns include, among others, their apprenticeship being low quality, badly organised, unhelpful or lacking the rigorous training that they rightly expected. If A-level or university students were dropping out in such large numbers or reporting similar complaints then it would be a national scandal. On that basis, there is no justification for tens of thousands of apprentices having to tolerate such a disheartening experience.<\/p>\n
While there are many excellent apprenticeships available, this report has no choice but to conclude that the quality of apprenticeships in England remains a serious problem. While an \u2018employer-led\u2019 approach to apprenticeships was a valid aim, the evidence strongly suggests that many employers are either unable or unwilling to offer apprentices a high-quality experience. Meanwhile, some training providers continue to make the most of the weak rules around training quality and the noticeable lack of enforcement from government. As a result, the majority of apprentices are being denied even their minimum entitlement to a decent training programme \u2013 a clear breach of the funding rules that apparently comes with few consequences for the training provider.<\/p>\n
The only way to eradicate poor provision and substandard training within the apprenticeship system is for the Government to now set a much higher bar for what constitutes \u2018quality\u2019 as well as consistently enforcing the rules and procedures that were intended to protect apprentices from malpractice and exploitation. In other words, our apprenticeship system should be reconfigured so that it puts the needs of apprentices alongside the needs of employers. If this change in culture and mindset does not materialise in the coming years, apprenticeships will continue to be \u201cconsidered second class\u201d and lack the prestige tied to attending university \u2013 as the Richard Review warned ten years ago. The recommendations in this report set out how policymakers can start a new journey towards building a high-quality apprenticeship system that is as respected and admired as a university degree. The reforms needed to reach this goal cannot come soon enough.<\/p>\n
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT<\/a><\/p>\n Read more….<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" EDSK – a not-for-profit think tank registered in England and Wales \u2013 has issued a new investigation of apprenticeships, highlighting concerns and calling on government to restate and renew its commitment to apprenticeship standards. image: for illustration – Open Government … Continue reading