The reason why apprenticeship programmes need to be industry-led

Written by Ash Gawthorp, Chief Academy Officer at Ten10

One of the problems with the apprenticeship levy is that it often lacks flexibility and ends up falling short of meeting the needs of the specific industry, for example, tech. It was created with the goal to bring those from a background where university wasn’t considered an option, into highly skilled roles where they are able to have access to a vocational pathway. Those people would then be trained on the job and continue to work their way up within that industry.

The problem is that these apprenticeships are often based on structures that don’t work within a typical business model. For instance, often apprentices need to finish courses at a college or university, and if there are projects that need to be completed within certain timeframes, then it doesn’t work when that person is away 3 days out of the week to finish coursework.

 

According to the educational and skills think tank EDSK, almost half of apprentices don’t complete their courses. Why is that? The problem is that the programmes funded by the levy are government-led, not industry-led. We need more industry input into what works for both employers and apprentices.

 

One of the areas that it is currently failing employers is that the levy is only validated to fund certain programmes. Employers will therefore opt for these because they’re funded. Now, if someone doesn’t finish their apprenticeship it might seem like the employer isn’t losing any money. But irrespective of who is paying for it, there is still investment on the part of the employers; they are investing time and resources into training that person with an expectation that they will continue to work with them at the end. When the person leaves halfway through, they are back to square one.

There are mechanisms out there that do achieve good results, but they’re not accessible through the levy. Companies need to be rewarded on their success factors and what has worked for them, rather than how many people they can push through to an apprenticeship.

 

But it’s absolutely reformable. The idea behind it is right and the way it is funded through the salary bill is brilliant: everybody who is part of the levy contributes to it and has access to the pot. It is how that pot is used and the types of programmes that the levy funds that need to be re-evaluated. One of the issues is the chasm between theoretical training versus the practical. Only a small part of the training is focussed on the practical tasks that actually utilise their knowledge, and too much of it is classroom work: reporting, essay writing and box ticking. That’s not equipping people with the correct skills they’ll need.

This is also why we’ve seen the levy being taken advantage of and funding MBA degrees for top executives when it should be used to equip young trainees with the right skills. This all ties back to having transparency with which programmes deliver the right results, and the current ones are failing to the point we’re seeing 100,000 fewer apprentices apply than six years ago. The levy needs to be led by industry experts and employers, rather than government and academia. We need data where we can see how successful these programmes are in a tangible way: what percentage of people are being placed in roles afterwards? How long are people staying in these roles for? Then we know what yields results.

 

The levy was brought in to help bridge the skills gaps in specific industries. It has the potential to introduce people who might otherwise not have had access to a vocational pathway. It is a chance for someone to earn whilst they learn their trade and get a foot in the industry.

The concept behind it is solid, but we need to address the suitability of certain people for each course. If we’re not accurately putting people in roles that suit their aptitude and abilities, they won’t be able to grow their skills. For example, not everyone will have the suitability for software development. Ultimately it is unfair to both the employer and the apprentice if people are being put forward for the wrong roles just to bump up numbers.

When we have that assessment and that conversation, we are then able to place them in roles that will equip them with the skills they’ll need to make it. This will also give employers the right people they can train to help them build their projects.