Apprenticeship start numbers have decreased.... and I think I know why!

We all have our different opinions as to what the aim of an Apprenticeship is but fundamentally, I believe it’s about an entry point into a career where you can earn and learn at the same time. It’s about giving somebody an opportunity to showcase their potential talent in the workplace with the view to offering them a sustainable career path within a set organisation. 

Back in 2015, the government set a target that by 2020, they would achieve 3,000,000 apprenticeship starts by increasing the quality and quantity within these programmes. In the foreword of the Governments publication of ‘English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision’, they stated that their goal was for ‘young people to see apprenticeships as a high quality and prestigious path to successful careers’ through ‘the opportunity that high quality education and training provides’. The foreword continues to state that employers will be in the driving seat with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and trailblazers, meaning they will be in control of what the apprentices would be learning to become skilled within their field. 

We are now in October 2019 not even close to the 3,000,000 apprenticeship start target set by the government. Latest official statistics show that from 2015 to 2018, apprenticeship start numbers stood at 1.38 million. Adding on the first three quarters of 18/19, this figure goes up to 1.69 million, meaning that to hit the target set, the country would need to achieve 1.31 million apprenticeship starts in the last quarter of that year and the next year. Somehow, I feel this is unachievable and I think we will fall short, dramatically, of this target. 

I wholeheartedly believe the quality of apprenticeships has improved. The introduction of the trailblazers and the new standards are offering employers and apprentices the chance to study subjects close to their industry rather than generic qualifications to fill a gap. 

But where did it go wrong? And more importantly, what do we need to do to improve the quantity of apprenticeships? 

Let’s take a look at the statistics:

After ‘English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision’ was published, apprenticeship start numbers improved by 1.9% which was a great start to hitting their target. If they continued at 500,000 Apprenticeship starts a year, they would get 3,000,000 by 2020. But in 16/17, start numbers dropped by 2.8% and then in 17/18, starts dropped dramatically by 24.1%. This was catastrophic to the governments’ targets. 

Coincidentally, on the 1st May 2017, when the numbers started to drop, 20% Off-The-Job Training was introduced. In 17/18, apprenticeship starts took a horrendous nose-dive, finishing on 76% of the quantity the year before and I believe the 20% OTJ Training had a significant part to play in this decline.

An Employer’s Perspective

I don’t think the government have looked at this from the other side of the table at all. I can completely understand their stance; if you improve the quality then the quantity will come and usually, this would work. However…. 20% OTJ Training equates to 1 day a week out of the apprentice’s day in which they have to spend doing some form of training towards their job role. And this HAS to be done during working hours. ‘It needs to be monitored to ensure that it is strictly conducted during employment time’ – (ILM Website, www.i-l-m.com/news-and-events/news-and-blog/blog-when-to-do-off-the-job).

Now, imagine you’re a large employer who used to take on 10/20/30 apprentices a year through government funding, not your own, and the apprentice would spend approximately 3 hours a week completing their apprenticeship work. Then you get told that the apprentice now must take 1 whole day out of their working week (1 day out of 5), oh and you’ve got to pay for it via a tax that you’ve got no choice but to pay (apprenticeship levy). So not only is this costing the employer regardless, they are now losing their member of staff for longer which would, in turn, cost the business more money as they won’t be ‘productive’ in that time. Sure, you could argue the training would make the employee more productive in the future but when you look at roles that generate immediate revenue, such as sales, why would you want your staff to be taking more time out of their day? Even managers who undergo upskilling, 1 day out their weak is an astronomical amount. This is 20% of their week in which they’re not spending time with their staff, improving/training their teams and doing significant roles. 

When you look at the smaller employers who are using apprentices to build their businesses, how can they afford to allow them 20% of their week to be doing training? Apprentices are valuable because they learn from the beginning and build up their knowledge of their business and industry, but they’re still an employee. Businesses will need all staff to do their jobs when there are tasks to be completed and sometimes, there isn’t time to allow the apprentice to do 1 day a week of training. I actually think the government need to get a bit real here! 

As a nation, we are doing everything we can to create pathways for students and young people to get into work, but I feel the government are creating a real barrier here. Not every Apprenticeship Standard or Framework needs 20% OTJ Training. Some do; but it should be completely tailorable and as long as the training provider is showing progression and valuable training to the client and apprentice, it should be seen as positive and acceptable. 

How do we fix it?

I don’t think a full reform is needed; the apprenticeships we have are great and they work. The frameworks/ standards contain great skills, knowledge and behaviour modules that offer all that is needed to learn their specific industries. However, we need to adapt in the way our learning is assessed and the length of time needed to complete it. Besides, if an apprentice is still in a job after 2 years, have they not shown they are capable in their working environment by the employer keeping them on for the duration of their programme? And how has the apprentice learnt to do their job? They have been trained to perform their duties and the training provider would have assisted from the outset. The emphasis from the ESFA and OFSTED should be the apprentice having a sustainable job and having learnt the skills required to complete that job, regardless of whether they spent 20% of their week completing it. Training providers should be targeted to show the progress of the apprentice by the training they’ve received, not the amount of it.

If we remove the 20% OTJ Training rule, I honestly believe apprenticeship start numbers would rise again. Apprenticeships should be about the apprentices and their businesses progression; not about proving a certain amount of training has been completed when it isn’t 100% necessary.

If we increase the amount of people undertaking apprenticeships, decrease unemployment rates and are offering people sustainable employment including training then surely it is a positive use of government funds?