Over the past five years, Edge has facilitated several debates on the philosophy and principles of vocational education. While these began as a way of driving academic thinking, the debate has become increasingly influential in policymaking and practice circles. The latest series, chaired in partnership with Professor Chris Winch (KCL) began with a debate on the definition of apprenticeships and how employers can best be supported to deliver them. Four excellent panellists offered a range of perspectives.
Alison Fuller (Professor of Vocational Education and Work, UCL Institute of Education) began by challenging our received wisdom about the nature of apprenticeships in England. In the public’s mind, she said, the term often conjures up images of young people with little to no tertiary education or employment experience.
However, statistics for 2021-22 show that only 22% of apprenticeship starts were under the age of 19, whereas nearly 50% were aged 25+. Alison also noted that the majority of starts have been employed for more than 3 months before starting their training, and cannot, therefore, be considered novices to employment. Growth in higher-level (including degree) apprenticeships also means apprentices typically already have strong prior formal education attainment (such as BTECs and A-levels). Finally, in areas like leadership and management, new apprentices are likely to be longstanding employees with existing skills.
In short, as a model of learning, Alison believes apprenticeships have grown more complex than the public perception. Poor regulation further drives the range of quality and consistency. Fostering stronger partnerships between providers and employers should help improve apprenticeship quality.
Next, Dr Michaela Brockmann (Southampton University) pinned down the various employer definitions of apprenticeships. Her research has shown that employers deliver apprenticeships in ways most suited to their business needs. Beyond that, approaches are wide-ranging.
Her research suggests three main tiers of apprenticeship as used by employers. The first – arguably the gold standard – develops apprentices as experts in an industry-wide community of practice. The second uses apprenticeships as a form of staff development. In this case, she cited retail and social care, where apprentices are often seen as employees who must undertake a certain number of training days. However, the onus for completion is usually on the apprentices themselves. Finally, some employers use performance-led apprenticeships to exploit the opportunity for cheap labour. Unsurprisingly, the latter represents the lowest quality of apprenticeship.
Dr Brockmann concluded by noting that the Department for Education has dismissed recommendations to strengthen apprenticeship regulations to tackle these quality issues. She suggested this might be because the government sees shielding organisations from stringent regulations as an incentive to employer take-up.
Offering a training provider’s perspective, we heard from James Norris (Vice Principal, Walsall College). At Walsall, apprenticeships are about helping young people and adults access employment and opportunity. However, James noted that the 2017 changes make this challenging and believes the sector is still paying the price for the decision to implement funding and qualification reforms simultaneously.
While Walsall has excellent employer partners who are passionate about apprenticeships, James said that some struggle to manage their commitments. Part of the problem, he said, is a disconnect between the level of input required and the employer’s expectation. He anticipates that operational pressures, cost of living and inflation will further impact the ability of employers to commit to delivering high-quality apprenticeship programmes in future. The solution, as he sees it, is to get back to basics: ‘apprentice’ should be first and foremost a job, with skills and training attached.
Finally, we heard from Chris Tolley (Human Resources Manager, Pall Aerospace). As an employer, her main challenge is developing a robust talent pipeline. She believes conscientious, forward-thinking businesses should be willing to invest in their apprentices financially, professionally and personally. However, she took issue with the assumption that apprentices should be novices – as an advocate of lifelong learning, she sees a thirst for knowledge and openness to opportunity as far more important traits than age or experience.
But even with the right apprentice and employer mindset, Chris said that the value of good training providers cannot be overstated. She has worked with providers of varying quality, ranging from the well-intentioned but under-resourced to those who see businesses primarily as a revenue stream. For her though, exemplar providers see employers as true partners and wish to understand their drivers. While Pall admittedly has more resources at its disposal than smaller employers, Chris believes a holistic approach between apprentices, employers and providers is the only way to successfully cultivate happy, productive employees who thrive long after completing their apprenticeships.
Contributions to the debate – from the provocations to the discussion covered in our breakout sessions – will be outlined in more detail in an upcoming report of the latest series. In the meantime, we look forward to the next debate in January, which will look at how narrow or broad the focus of vocational education should be.