A good start, but can the policy follow?
Richard Guy considers the implications for apprenticeships from Skills England’s first report.
Skills England’s first report (Driving growth and widening opportunities) has just been published. It identifies skills as fundamental to growth and productivity but it also finds:
More than a third of employer vacancies are now caused by skills shortages, compared to 22% from 2013 to 2017.
The most pressing skills shortages are in Level 3 to 5 occupations, mirroring the Augar Review’s conclusion about the ‘missing middle’ of our post-18 education system.
A steady decline over the past decade in employer investment in skills, which the report suggests is driven by a range of factors including strong international labour supply and a shift of responsibility for upskilling from employers to government.
Significant variation in skills shortages by region. Notably, the report makes several supportive references to Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs).
Strategically important skills shortages and skills gaps in digital, AI and green skills and in the life sciences, health and social care and construction sectors.
Three long term “megatrends” in demographics, technology, and green skills.
Skills England has also adopted a set of indicators which measure ‘occupations in demand’. This analysis shows that large volume occupations in demand are mainly below degree level in a range of technical and practical occupations.
The report brings technical education and apprenticeships at levels 3/4/5 centre stage in the drive for economic growth, described by Chancellor Rachel Reeves as a ‘national mission’.
On the same day as this strategic, well-argued first Skills England report was published, it was announced that employers would have to fund ‘more of their level 7 apprenticeships from outside the levy’ (i.e. defunding). This would, in the PM’s words, rebalance investment in training towards young people, presumably to free up money for the day’s other announcements, of DfE plans for “foundation apprenticeships” (a pre-apprenticeship programme for young people) and “shortened apprenticeships” which are less than 12 months duration.
The changes to apprenticeships announced by Government do not flow from the SE report and seem to have been cobbled together quickly in order to make political announcements. It is possible that, once again, the skills agenda has been tinkered with in order to fit a short term agenda of political announcements just as it was for Rishi Sunak’s Advanced British Standard.
The big difference between the approach of the last Government and the new one is that Labour has committed that Skills England will ‘identify the training for which the Growth and Skills Levy will be accessible’, rather than ministers. On this occasion this has not happened. This is understandable because the Skills England board is not yet in place. Let us hope that this can happen soon and we then see a move to strategy-led, consistent and long term decisions
The Skills England report together with Labour’s manifesto commitment to deal with the NEET issue cry out for a strategy for technical education and apprenticeships for young people to:
Increase take-up of technical education at levels 2 and 3 by 16 to 19 year olds and hugely improve the very poor rates of progression from full time technical programmes to related work, apprenticeships and higher-level courses. Early indications are that progression to related occupations/sectors is much better for T level students.
Establish the place of level 4/5 Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) in the system for both initial technical education and upskilling (supported by the new levy?)
Implement a strategy to grow apprenticeships for young people at all levels by:
Establishing the Youth Guarantee for 18 to 21 year olds as an administratively tight and genuine offer.
Increasing/incentivising the employer offer of apprenticeships to young people; tackling the list of issues cited by Skills England as responsible for falling employer investment in skills.
Introducing a proper “UCAS style” (not UCAS delivered) apprenticeships options system for year 11, 12 and 13 students, with offers made and delivered by apprenticeship providers.
Introducing foundation apprenticeships for the minority of the NEET group who are not ready for level 2 training.
Giving priority in the operation and funding of apprenticeships to initial training of new recruits, rather than upskilling for existing employees.
Skills England has been tasked with engaging employers and providers in the coming weeks on plans to defund level 7 apprenticeships. If, as appears the case, not all level 7 standards are to be defunded, what are the criteria for the choice?
Some of the more popular level 7 standards are generally used for upskilling existing employees. Many other, often lower volume level 7 standards, represent initial training in highly technical skills shortage occupations, such as Clinical Associate in Psychology and Systems Engineer. The criteria for retention should focus on the question: Are the apprentices mostly recruits involved in initial training or are they existing employees already substantially competent in the occupation in question? Skills England can look at data on age of entry and whether apprentices were employees for (say) 6 months plus before entry to apprenticeship.
If Skills England takes this consistent approach then they will avoid a situation whereby reform of apprenticeships becomes “death by a thousand cuts”. Instead, they will be signalling that when the chips are down what is fundamental to the future of apprenticeships is adding value to the economy via initial training of young people.