23 Jan 08

Apprenticeships feature strongly in traditional sectors such as construction. Credit: iStockphoto/kozmoat98.

The Nuffield Review argues that although the government has ‘high expectations’ of apprenticeships, such programmes currently present ‘limited prospects for growth.’ The Review, led by Professor Richard Pring from Oxford University Education Department, has produced two papers – focusing on apprenticeship – as part of its series of Issues Papers on 14-19 education and training.

Among the issues raised by the Review is whether apprenticeships can play a significant role in the context of the raising of the age of compulsory participation in education or training to 18 by 2015; as well as whether employers see apprenticeships as an attractive option, and the extent to which public money, or employers, should be responsible for investing in the training of young people to tackle the perceived skills shortage in this country.

The Review reports that the number of young people in apprenticeship programmes is low, with only 7.5 per cent in work-based training in 2005, as compared with 11.3 per cent in 1994. The Review argues that apprenticeship as a whole is ‘a mixed bag,’ featuring strongly in traditional sectors like engineering, construction, manufacturing and catering, but making little impact elsewhere. It argues that the apprenticeship system is competing with other flagship government policies – the expansion of higher education to those who have traditionally entered work-based routes and the introduction later this year of the new Diplomas.

The paper discusses strategies to promote apprenticeships: rebranding existing activity, widening the appeal of apprenticeship schemes to non-traditional applicants, and the setting up of a national ‘clearing house,' on the UCAS model, to match unfilled apprenticeship places with the qualifications of interested individuals.

The paper stresses the importance of apprenticeships, which it says have ‘a vital role’ in addressing skills shortages, and suggests that with the right strategies in place apprenticeship might contribute to increasing participation rates of 17-year-olds in education and training to 90 per cent by 2015.

The Review also addresses the issue of whether a balance can be struck between making apprenticeships attractive to employers, while at the same time ensuring that such programmes provide high-quality training for young people. It asks whether further incentives are needed for employers.

The Review believes a wider debate needs to take place, focusing on what apprenticeship is and who should benefit. It believes this is a matter of urgency given the amount of public money being invested in apprenticeships. The government has announced it is set to increase funding by almost a quarter between 2007-2011 to provide a total of 400,000 funded apprenticeship places.

Geoff Hayward, a director of the Nuffield Review from Oxford University’s Education Department, said: ‘Apprenticeship is an important part of the choice on offer for young people. However, the extent to which it will play a significant role in encouraging young people to stay on and achieve in education and training is unclear. Apprenticeship is competing with other education and training pathways available to young people, including the Diplomas. Apprenticeship growth is also limited by the availability of high quality training places being offered by employers. The risk of expanding apprenticeship further to meet government targets is that the public subsidises training in sectors that do not require intermediate level skills and which offer a poor learning experience for the apprentice.’ 

The paper argues that apprenticeship schemes need to be flexible, and shorter than they were in the past, but warns that the system is currently ‘weakly regulated’ with no guarantee for young people that they will benefit from it. Also highlighted in the paper is the challenge of expanding the system to include those sectors with little tradition of apprenticeship and those sectors, such as construction, where the business model has changed.

Dr Hayward said:  ‘Apprenticeship has the potential to offer young people a high-quality and respected training route, and many employers and young people currently benefit from its positive features. However, the Nuffield Review is concerned that the quality of apprenticeship programmes for all young people is not guaranteed across the programmes and the sectors involved. Greater clarity about what apprenticeship is, and who it should be for, is urgently needed if the term apprenticeship is not to become meaningless.’