Apprenticeships: the sequel

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need of tinkering. Or, to put it more plainly in quasi engineering terms, if it ain't broke, why the need to fix it? The truth is that plenty of UK manufacturers have been saying for some time that the renaissance of apprenticeships is welcome, but what is being delivered on the ground is far from being fully fit for purpose. The reality, they say, doesn't match up to the rhetoric. Even now, as the government itself succumbs to the need for a root and branch review of the scheme's future, ministers find it difficult to climb down from the heights of the hyperbole they've created. Here, for instance, announcing last month the need for the fresh independent review of apprenticeships to be conducted by former 'dragon' and founder of the social enterprise School for Startups, Doug Richard, is the opening salvo from skills minister John Hayes. "The government has built the biggest and best apprenticeships programme of modern times. Last year there were over 457,000 apprenticeship starts and we have set out rigorous new standards to guarantee all apprenticeships are of the highest quality. Apprenticeships have never before been given the status or significance that I, as the minister responsible, have afforded them." Or business secretary Vince Cable: "The apprenticeship programme has been a real success, not only boosting chances for young people, but also helping businesses to address their skills gaps." Which is all rather odd in the context of the announcement of a review with terms of reference that include fundamentals such as what the core components of an apprenticeship should be and who they should be for. Having got self justification for what has gone before out of the way, Cable gets closer to the mark with an admission that: "However, in the past vocational youngsters have been let down by weak courses and our competitors have stolen a march. I have just come back from a fact-finding mission to Germany where two-thirds of young people take some form of apprenticeship by the time they are 25." As does Hayes with his own 'however' second thought: "However, if we are to ensure that apprenticeships continue to meet the skills needs of our constantly evolving economy then we must take every opportunity to re-examine the why, what and how of apprenticeships, to ensure they are equipping learners and employers for the future." Secretary of state for education Michael Gove joins in with: "It's great that the number taking up apprenticeships has grown. But there are still serious issues – there is still too much bureaucracy getting in the way of small firms taking people on, too much money appears to be going to middle men and the quality of some vocational qualifications taken by apprentices is still not good enough." So much for ministers, but what do real manufacturers think? A common criticism from the manufacturing sector – particularly from those in higher end engineering – is the lack of differentiation between the various kinds of training that have been lumped together in a broad brush definition of 'apprenticeship'. It's all smoke and mirrors, the more cynical say, to boost numbers towards pulling off a political coup by being able to trumpet the over achievement of over-ambitious numerical targets. Adrian Roberts, director of human resources at the Schaeffler (UK) bearings manufacturing plant in Llanelli, puts it neatly. Ramping up the numbers for a "quick fix" undermines the integrity of the scheme, he says. "It is devaluing the apprenticeships that organisations like ours have striven hard for over so many years. Our apprenticeships are not the same as making coffee in Starbucks or stacking shelves in Tesco. I'm not devaluing what they do, but is it appropriate to term it the same when the training programme is significantly shorter? You can't achieve a degree in six months – why should you be able to get an apprenticeship in that time?" Peter Wylie, managing director at Malvern, Worcestershire-based Automated Packaging Systems offers another view of one-size-fits-all solutions to meeting his company's needs in terms of skills and long-term commitment. "Apprenticeships are one way for us to bring high calibre people into our business and provide them with quality training and mentoring," he concedes. "However, it's not always the most effective means for us to achieve a high calibre workforce and a low rate of staff turnover." They are the twin objectives that Wylie considers to be fundamental to Automated Packaging Systems' support and service commitments to customers. "It's a fact that the steps on the career progression ladder in a business of our size are fewer and further between, so managing the expectation of newly qualified apprentices is often the biggest challenge," he explains. "Recruiting and training people who are looking to make a long-term commitment to Automated Packaging Systems remains the top priority, and an apprenticeship isn't always right for those individuals." Gerry Dunne, managing director of precision pressings and tooling business Westley Engineering in Aston, Birmingham, wants apprentices to have the same standing as they did 30 years ago and to have full-time employment at the end of it. "Anything less than that, and we are only window dressing the problem," he says. He claims to have seen apprentice hairdressers taken on to clean the salon for rock bottom pay, only to be told after a couple of years that they are not wanted. "Likewise, you hear of people doing apprenticeships where they are learning only to assemble bits together. All this is doing in the long term is to dilute what an apprenticeship is all about." Like a number of manufacturers, Westley Engineering is tackling its skills challenges by adopting its own apprenticeship programme. More unusually, the company 'loans' out its apprentices to like-minded firms to gain a more rounded training. "There has been a lot of talk about the lack of young people coming into industry and firms are often quick to moan about education letting them down and irrelevant training schemes," Dunne says. "We preferred to take a more proactive approach and do something about it ourselves. The national apprenticeship scheme is a great starting point, but we felt we could enhance it further by working in partnership with firms who share similar values to ourselves, but could offer different work placements." Global crane manufacturer Liebherr-Sunderland also takes a collaborative approach as a way of addressing what it sees as a fundamental threat to UK manufacturing. "In Germany and Switzerland around one fifth of all 16-24 year olds are in apprenticeships – in Austria the figure is 15%. while England has less than 10% of the group in apprenticeship," managing director Ralph Sälzer told a conference at the Subcon manufacturing event last month. The company, which had struggled to find suitable skilled local people, set up an apprenticeship scheme to develop skills that were unavailable. It is a founding member of the new North East Skills Alliance for Advanced Manufacturing, established by the sector skills council Semta, and working with 40 engineering and manufacturing organisations to support sector growth through, among other training initiatives, apprenticeships. Atlas Copco Compressors business line manager Sean Fairest says his company has also been operating its own apprenticeship scheme for many years, an activity it regards as essential to enable its young people to develop the key engineering skills required for a future career as a compressor engineer, "which in turn is helping to maintain the high standards of compressor engineering excellence". Back at Schaeffler (UK), Adrian Roberts says the business has been running apprenticeships for over 50 years and boasts that the scheme does deliver the kind of low labour turnover so desired by the likes of Automated Packaging Systems. Roberts explains that Schaeffler doesn't see its individual apprentices in their first year. "We don't have the training schools that larger organisations do, so apprentices spend the first year fully at the local college." There, they get a broad introduction to engineering before going on, in years two to four, to spending four days each week training on site with a mentor and one day at the college. In the West Country, at Tiverton in Devon, linear motion manufacturer HepcoMotion's training manager, Bob Gregory also boasts a high level of apprentice retention. "In the last four years, all but one newly qualified apprentice has remained with the company," he says. Away from the coal face of manufacturing, industry bodies tend to be less critical of the status quo but concede there is room for improvement. Ann Watson, managing director of EAL, the awarding organisation for industry qualifications, insists that apprenticeships are "a gold standard education pathway leading to highly skilled careers in a variety of sectors" and is critical of negative media reports that have overshadowed "countless success stories". She says: "The stories of apprenticeship successes far outweigh those of failure but we, as an industry, must work hard to stamp out all instances of poor provision and ensure learners are getting the best possible start to their careers." But while Watson is encouraged to see the government taking steps to address quality issues around minimum duration and subcontracting arrangements, Westley Engineering's Gerry Dunne has some practical thoughts about something the newly announced government review (see box below) might like to consider. "There should be further financial incentives to employers for taking on apprentices to do three- or four-year apprenticeships," he suggests, "especially those companies that increase the pay of their apprentices, year on year. "Apprentice toolmakers are not produced in one year. It takes many years to have a fully skilled toolmaker. An apprentice toolmaker costs an employer approximately £6,000 per apprentice in year one and then £8,000 in year two, before any financial benefits to the employer can be seen," he adds. "I would like to see an incentive to employers whereby funding is given of 50% of the apprentice's salary for the first three years of employment. Then it would feel like the government is working closely with us." The future of apprenticeships – a government review Last month, the government appointed entrepreneur and erstwhile Dragons' Den 'dragon' Doug Richard to lead an independent review into the future of apprenticeships. The so-called Richard Review will "look at how to build upon the record success of recent years". In particular, says Richards' brief, the review should take a critical look at apprenticeships, identify the best of current practice and recommend ways to extend it. Key questions to be considered include:

• What should the core components of an apprenticeship be in order to meet the needs of employers (large and small), individuals, and the wider economy?
• Who should apprenticeships be for – which types of learners and employers can benefit most from apprenticeships?
• Are there elements of apprenticeships which should be simplified or stripped back?
• Are the qualifications which are undertaken as part of an apprenticeship sufficiently rigorous, and recognised and valued by employers?
• How should delivery arrangements adequately ensure all that apprenticeships provide significant new learning and acquisition of new skills, rather than the accreditation of existing ones?
• Are there opportunities to improve the impact and value for money of public investment in apprenticeships?

The review is due to report in the autumn.