World-Class Apprenticeships Part 2: Level 2 Won't Do
There was always a danger that in a run-up to a General Election, the Apprenticeship debate would simply turn into a numbers game – an “I’m going to do more Apprenticeships than you are” soundbite war. So it was good to see that Labour has taken the arguably risky step of focusing on quality rather than quantity and committed the party to an Apprenticeship strategy based around Level 3 qualifications.
Predictably, this strategy has been met with little enthusiasm from the usual suspects, those people within the sector who are desperate to maintain the status quo and who have a track record of opposing almost any change designed to improve the quality of the Apprenticeship framework. They tend to be the same people who wanted to retain the discredited Key Skills qualifications and short-term 6 month Apprenticeships, keep Apprenticeship wages as low as possible and ensure that employers don’t have to make any financial commitments to the programme. One well-known commentator went as far as saying that Labour was “totally out of touch with the skills needs of the country” and “supporting an elitist agenda”.
I believe that those comments are fundamentally wrong and that Labour’s approach is a bold and necessary step forward.
What Do “Levels” Mean?
A Level 2 Apprenticeship is roughly equivalent in skills levels to GCSEs. Similarly, a Level 3 equates to ‘A’ levels and the higher levels to degree level qualification. So let’s be quite clear, Level 2 Apprenticeships are simply confirming a learner’s ability to reach a skills level expected for a 16 year old student. They are not in any shape or form addressing the huge skills crisis which we face in the UK. That can only be tackled by raising skill levels. To put this into perspective, an authoritative report issued in 2010 suggested that by 2020, the UK would have a shortage of 3.4 million jobs at Level 3. How on earth can we address that problem simply by assessing a learner’s ability to reach the skill levels required of a 16 year old?
What Happened To Progression?
The problem would not be so acute if genuine progression was taking place and in theory, the Apprenticeship structure provides the means to do just that. We often hear the term “vocational career pathways” and imagine thousands of young people undertaking an Apprenticeship as an alternative to University. However, the stark reality is very different. Currently only a tiny percentage of Apprenticeships (about 1-2%), are at Level 4 and above and thereby equivalent to a degree. Just under 30% are at Level 3 and around 70% are Level 2. The SFA does not publish stats on progression, but my research and experience suggests that the majority of Level 3 Apprentices started at that level rather than progressing from a Level 2.
So to summarise, the concept of learners climbing an Apprenticeship ladder towards a degree-equivalent qualification is currently still a pipedream. There is little evidence of significant progression and most Level 2 Apprentices remain at this level and proceed no further. That is clearly a recipe for economic madness.
Are We On The Road To A Skills Disaster?
Whilst reading “Remember The Young People”, a recent excellent report by the IPPR, I came across a couple of other very uncomfortable statistics. According to authoritative Local Government Association figures, in 2011/12, 94,000 people were trained in Health & Beauty but only 18,000 jobs were available. At the same time, 123,000 people took courses in Construction & Engineering where there were 275,000 jobs available.
Whilst not all of these learners were doing an Apprenticeship, the majority of training would have been at Level 2. So in effect we were funding training for 76,000 learners in Health & Beauty who had little or no chance of obtaining a full-time job at the end of their course. Who benefits from this? Well, the government can point to large numbers of qualifications, the training providers collect the funding, the employers get free training and the learner gets nothing of any value whatsoever. That doesn’t seem fair does it?
Level 3 Is The Only Solution
I therefore believe that the only answer is to make Level 3 the standard for Apprenticeships. There will of course be a need for “top-up” training for some learners before they start on a Level 3 programme but that could be achieved for example by merging the existing Traineeship programme with elements of Level 2, to create a “Pre-Apprenticeship” course. The argument I have heard expressed that many learners are not capable of undertaking a Level 3 programme is patronising and is in effect condemning young people to a lifetime of under-achievement.
Building a world-class Apprenticeship programme is never going to be an easy and comfortable process. If we genuinely want to be the best, we will need to ask some challenging questions make difficult decisions and be prepared as leaders, to do what is right rather than just doing the right things. I’m convinced that Level 3 programmes are a key part of that process
Roger Francis is a Director with Creative Learning Partners Ltd, a new vocational training company formed by the senior managers and staff of MindLeaders Learning Services following the acquisition of the company by Skillsoft in 2012 and focusing on the delivery of Functional Skills
Standalone Functional Skills programmes are fully funded by the UK Government and can therefore be delivered to employers without charge.
Please email roger.francis@clpartners.co.uk for further information.
Wild Card - draw me for a winning hand | Creative Problem Solver in Many Roles | Manual Software QA | Project Management | Business Analysis | Auditing | Accounting |
8y"I therefore believe that the only answer is to make Level 3 the standard for Apprenticeships" Due to the shortage of jobs, inflation in standards is what naturally happens.
Skills, Apprenticeships, Governance support for FE and Apprenticeship learning providers and employers
9yMy issue is with levels as a concept. In my humble opinion, the "master craftsman" takes on the apprentice from scratch, with no use for "levels" other than the amount of support required to upskill in English and maths. The apprentice is then trained through to competence at whatever role it is. As long as the apprentice has been given the technical skills to be excellent at what he/she does, why worry about the qual levels? Pre-apprenticeships are vital to give young people a taster prior to committing to a full-blown apprenticeship, but after that, it's an apprenticeship, regardless of qualification levels", based on the job - eg operative, technician, whatever...........
Senior Portfolio Business Partner - Education, Cambridge University Press & Assessment
9yI have to agree with many points in this article and agree that 'Apprenticeships' should be at Level 3 or above. There is a need for people to be trained at level 2 for those job roles that require it, but this does not necessarily mean that it should be an Apprenticeship. An Apprenticeship confers a level of competence but in many sectors full competence is not reached upon completion of a level 2 qualification or Apprenticeship. The changes to Apprenticeships means that there is a strong requirement from the employer to be involved and not just from a financial perspective. Only time will tell if these changes are for the better, but the employers and training providers I am working with all seem excited about the changes. Having worked in delivering Apprenticeships predominantly at Level 2, I have seen little impact on employers on having 'skilled' employees. Apprenticeships should be where there is detailed skills and knowledge to be imparted and this is not always the case in some sectors. We have the responsibility as providers of skills and knowledge to ensure that we are providing UK Plc what is needed to stimulate further economic growth and priorities (including Government Funding) should be provided to those sectors that will help the recovery. This should be at all levels of delivery not just Apprenticeships. This would reduce the over delivery by providers against demand which was noted in the article. Level 3 and above vocational qualifications are achievable by all and should be aspired to, without it, who is going to train the next generation?
Comedian | Promoter | Digital Learning Transformation Specialist | International Speaker | Podcaster
9y"What do levels mean?" - to me, as an employer, absolutely nothing. I don't care whether an Apprenticeship is deemed Level 2, Level 3 or Level 42 (one for my generation there!). The more important question is "Does the framework fit the need it attempts to address?". In my sector, hospitality, a lot of activity that takes place even at managerial level falls into what you'd term Level 2. That doesn't make it any less important. What if the perfect framework requires learning at a mixture of levels? Do you level it all down and miss out on essential learning or level it up and have people learning irrelevant stuff? The obsession with "Levels" makes it very difficult for us to build a good framework for our Apprentices without having to do stuff "because it's part of the qualification". I was involved in Functional Skills at pilot stage and have found this the most baffling experience of all. Having to take a learner away from analysing their Profit & Loss accounts, creating a financial plan or completing a full stock take and gross profit analysis so they could sit an exam filled with questions about how much petrol it would take to go on a journey or how many floor tiles someone needs is frankly ridiculous. Until frameworks are built around the needs of learners and not about ticking boxes, we are destined to be stuck in this loop of "What level?"
Business Development & Apprenticeship Manager
9yRoger, nothing wrong in aspiring all learners reaching level 3 and above. Currently I am targeted with a 55% target apprentices transferring from level 2 to level 3. This is usually exceeded and the decision for an apprentice to progress onto level 3 is a joint one of the apprentice, the training provider, the employer and in my case CITB. Level 2 is the first stepping stone and does not need to be interfered with. A the present time Traineeships are being used to bring a young person up to a standard to cope with Level 2, it would need a massive adjustment to make that jump to level 3. With the school leaving age being raised it seems from my recent recruitment that the additional year 12 and 13 is being used to retake or re teach Maths and English GCSE's that were failed or had poor results in year 11. If level 3 is to become the industry minimum a lot of work has to be done to bring up the success rates up at school in year 11 or 12 as young people still need to start an apprenticeship before their 19th birthday to maximise funding. With the increased number of Higher Apprenticeships being introduced at level 4 and above, would this not soon give the desired increase in young people entering at a higher level and that degree level being reached by more than 1 -2%. In my experience a level 2 qualification is usually the first achievement a young person experiences in their education (which is totally wrong) so it remains an important building block for many young people to start at and progress from. Maybe level 2 will naturally become the new foundation level in years to come?