Jason Ford, news editor
A survey published today highlights how the government could undermine its own efforts to increase the number of people becoming apprentices.
The Industry Apprentice Council, which works on behalf of apprentices in the advanced manufacturing and engineering (AME) sector, canvassed 1,200 young apprentices on their experiences to date and the ways in which their training could be improved.
The survey’s standout statistic shows that 98 per cent of apprentices are happy that they chose to follow a more hands-on route into their chosen career and reasons for this include good rates of pay and no student debt, fulfilling work, qualifications and career progression.
The government wants to create three million apprentices, and statistics indicate that employers are edging closer to that figure, with 9,500 more apprentices in 2015/16 than in the previous year (499,900). According to a Commons Briefing paper, people aged 25 and over accounted for 44 per cent (224,100) of apprenticeship starts in 2015/16. People aged 19-24 accounted for 30 per cent (153,860) and under 19s 26 per cent (131,420). The majority of these starts were in the service sectors. In total, there were 904,800 people on an apprenticeship in 2015/16, up from 871,000 the year before.
Further efforts to encourage meaningful apprenticeships were brought in earlier this year in the form of the Apprenticeship Levy, which is applicable to companies with a wage bill of over £3m. The levy – set at 0.5 per cent of the value of the employer’s pay bill, minus an apprenticeship levy allowance of £15,000 per financial year – is paid into an apprenticeship service account, and funds in this account have to be spent on apprenticeship training and assessment.
The survey has found, however that apprentices are unhappy about plans to change final assessments with John Coombes, IAC member and toolmaker at Ford Motor Company, stating that over than 90 per cent of apprentices oppose the removal of mandated qualifications, and that there is unease about the focus on the End Point Assessment (EPA) as the primary measure of an apprentice’s achievement.
Government ambitions appear in danger of being blown off course with the introduction of the Trailblazer Apprenticeship programme, which is designed to help employers dictate training according to their needs. Earlier this year the Institute for Apprentices was formed to give companies a stronger role in the leadership of the apprenticeship system, including the sanctioning of EPAs that assess trainees on knowledge, skills and behaviours deemed competent by employers.
This would see the removal of mandatory qualifications, putting apprentices at a disadvantage compared to their peers who choose the new T-Level route into work, thus gaining nationally recognised qualifications.
In February this year, The Engineer asked if apprenticeships should include formal qualifications, a question that prompted 78 per cent of 590 respondents to agree that formal qualifications are an essential mark of competence.
Unsurprisingly the survey, which was supported by Semta, also found apprentices less than satisfied with careers advice given to them. Just over a fifth (22 per cent) received good or very good advice from schools, with five per cent receiving no advice and nearly 40 per cent saying their advice was bad or very bad.
Similarly, 85 per cent of female apprentices said their school or college had put higher education as the number one option for school leavers, compared to 77 per cent for male apprentices. Also, fewer young women were given information about apprenticeships compared to young men (35 per cent against 41 per cent).
To counter negative impacts on training, and to redress problems found in schools, the apprentices say no school should be awarded outstanding by OFSTED unless they deliver quality careers advice on apprenticeships and that this advice should be a statutory requirement in all schools. They also want formal qualifications included in apprenticeship standards wherever employers recommend them.
Ann Watson, chief executive of the Semta Group, said: “As we finalise new standards for apprenticeships it is important that ministers listen to apprentices and prevent the collapse of an extremely successful system. We are already facing an uphill battle with poor careers advice in schools. We need to make apprenticeships more attractive not less to our young people and employers, particularly the SMEs, at a time when we need all the engineers we can get and the skills gap is growing – we need nearly two million more engineers and technical staff by 2025.”
Is government right to tinker with apprenticeships and introduce EPAs, and what can schools do to improve careers advice? Let us know in Comments below.
Not much changed in career advice since my day then. I went to a grammar school, and they did everything short of outright sabotage to persuade me to not to an apprenticeship and stay on for sixth form.
It looks from this survey that apprentices are engaged, intelligent, and have confidence in their training, but they MUST have formal qualifications at the end, or it’s completely pointless.
In full agreement with Jonathan, no doubt older at 79 and still doing some consultancy work for a German company. I went to a technical school from 13-15 yrs and we produced wooden patterns, cast in aluminium from patterns, soldered, braised and heatreated items we made by hand.
My apprenticeship at Cincinnati Machine Tools building machines, including piecework which allowed immediately the training officer to see immediately your cmpet
The text was not completed “I needed to say NO assessments were made by outside bodies and we attended day school and night school to HNC and Final City and Guild levels”
Simple compared to today.
The problem is the engineering and manufacturing base has been eroded over the past four /five decades particularly training and apprenticeships. This has been a govt. and an education policy like 50% required to go to university. Absolute nonsense. When at the same time the trades plumbing, electrical general engineering are desperate for skilled labour, and would be more suited to many students especially given the quality of diluted degrees that they have to pay for and often with no firm jobs at the end of it. What was wrong with the five year apprenticeships with City and Guilds qualifications as it used to be. Giving the recipients a very good background and with part time study allowed the opportunity to move onto higher education if they wished
I think what we desperately need is professional careers advisors in schools (i.e. not a sideline by teachers with understandably limited experience) engaging with pupils from an earlier age than currently showing them the breadth of careers available and the various routes into them. They need to be independent so that, unlike the schools, they don’t care how many go on to higher education.
Agree absolutely with each of the comments above: but what can we expect when a knowledge based as opposed to manufacture and value added based economy has had political support (invariably from the Right) for those 4/5 decades described. We have now had those with ‘arty-f**ty’ qualifications at the top of schools, civil service and HMG for two decades: and that absurd situation is not going to change by yet another edict from Michael Gove or whoever.
League tables, incentive payments, gongs and honours, the meja, PR, increased salaries for heads..where is the incentive to recognise that our ‘talent-pool’ has given a totally unbalanced economy.
Agree with you Mike, but it was the left/’third wayers’ as well as the right who pushed the idea of the ‘knowledge economy’ – especially this bloke http://charlesleadbeater.net/1999/01/living-on-thin-air-the-new-economy/ and old Marxism Today stalwart. The dept for Culture, media and sport (CMS) was set up under the New labour govt from the Dept of national heritage set up by the Tories. It’s not completely useless – but helped establish IMO – the imbalance between the so called creative sectors and manufacturing. Perhaps the Engineer should do an interview with Charlie Leadbeater to see if he still thinks his thesis was correct…. basically this is beyond left and right –
My next door neighbour of many years ago was the Careers Master and a History teacher. A person more unsuited to being anything to do with careers you could not imagine. Clueless of the outside world to say the least. When he found out that I was an Engineer, specialising in airborne surveillance and photography, he was wide eyed and astounded, impossible to explain anything to him without being more than just elementary. I do not think much could have changed since then.
Having left school with moderate ‘O’ Levels and more than happy to pursue an apprenticeship I eventually joined the Royal Air Force as an Electrical Fitter (Air) that is to say I would be trained to work on aircraft. Getting into the RAF was far from easy and a day spent doing ‘tests’ which I later found out was sorting the wheat from the chaff I embarked on a two year craft apprenticeship. This was intense with daily schooling and workshops to hone both the technical detail required and the hand skills.
I have stressed to would be apprentices where I work that I then had to produce work to +/- 5 thousands of an inch tolerance, something I dare say would stretch many of our best civilian apprentices. Work less than standard was immediately thrown in the bin with even less time to replicate before the given deadline, usually 1-2weeks. OK I know the forces are more strict in disciplinary terms but my experience does not fill me with confidence in the structure of todays apprenticeships.
Here in New Zealand the present government party, after destroying apprenticeships 25 odd years ago, are now desperate for tradesmen and are importing them. The new apprenticeship scheme has some good points but there are things like a friends son’s building apprenticeship I question. For instance, he needed special assistance in school, has trouble reading and struggles with arithmetic yet he completed ALL paperwork to do with his apprenticeship part time in the first 3 months! The idiots who came up with that will probably get hired as consultants.
I read the Engineer ´s articles eagerly , particularly the ones regarding apprenticeships having been
an apprentice in Sheffield . After working in Germany for over 40 years and being responsible
for company training , among other things , I can only suggest that the people responsible for re-installing a good vocational system look
at the Austrian, Swiss and German method which is nearly perfect in all respects.
All countries have the same basic problem: Young people, male and female ,leaving school with top, medium and poor grades. need some training. In the countries mentioned there are multitudes of choices depending
on ability . Some Apprs. offered for the high flyers, combine a bachelor course with an Appr. .
This lasts mostly 4 years. High standard Apprs. last 3.5 years if all exams are passed. Some Apprs
are for 2 years only . Generally no one leaves school without doing some recognised standardised training which means that any future employer knows more or less what the persons cababilities are . Many go on to become master tradesmen, particularly in the building
trade.
“The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany ” can be viewed as a PDF online
for more information.
As opposed to the British sytem , approximately the same amount of commercial Apps. are
offered as there are technical ones.
Educaton ( university ) in Germany in completely free , apprentices receive around 600 – 800 Euros a month and private schools leading up to A levels are basically none existent !
Thanks
Ron Simmonds
“impossible to explain anything to him without being more than just elementary. I do not think much could have changed since then.” I have recently enjoyed a lively exchange with a very senior ‘lady’ indeed so senior that she is about to become President of the Supreme Court. I pointed out the occasions when I have had great difficulty explaining to very senior lawyers -judges and barristers- the difference between something as simple as ‘heat’ and ‘temperature’. Such persons may be able to explain the finer points of ‘mutartis mutandis’ and ‘sine qua non’ to each other…but ‘O’ level physics was well beyond their comprehension. I recall a similar inability described by staff at Shrivenham, trying to teach what was termed “Readers’ Digest simple science” to brigadiers, generals and the like. Great for leading ‘the men’ over the top, foolishly brave…but having not a clue about the science and engineering which they were putting into action? Has anything altered? I doubt it!