NAO right to be concerned about implementation of apprenticeship reforms

As Parliament returns, opposition MPs have been quick to jump on concerns about the government’s latest set of funding proposals for apprenticeships.  Unless the government quickly reviews these, we are looking at a potentially devastating impact on the number of opportunities available for young people, especially in our inner city areas.   My training provider members in London are even warning of an ‘apprenticeship desert’ in the capital.

I’m sure that the government will sort the matter out but it is a pity that this has distracted attention from reforms that rightly put apprenticeships at the heart of the technical education agenda and the nation’s skills strategy.  The vote to leave the EU has accentuated the need for the apprenticeship reforms to be a success because Britain has to start developing home grown skills before the likely ending of free movement of labour.  Increasing the number of apprenticeships in line with the government’s manifesto commitment will also support the Chancellor’s number one priority of improved productivity.  If implemented properly, the government’s apprenticeship policy will be a game changer for technical education in this country.

AELP has submitted to ministers its concerns about both the proposed funding of apprenticeships and the new register for apprenticeship training providers, but we still believe that it was right for the government to press ahead with the levy and its apprenticeship policy.  Nevertheless some aspects of the reform need to be phased in and introduced later than April 2017 to ensure a far less risky implementation.  The National Audit Office has in a report this week rightly highlighted that further progress is needed to manage the risks involved in the reforms because if we don’t get the transition process right, there’s a real danger that the quality of apprenticeships will be adversely affected.  The NAO’s points made about the impact on non-levy paying employers are particularly pertinent and this is why AELP is calling for their level 2 and 3 apprenticeships to be fully funded by the government for these employers for the short term at least.

We question why all apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year olds should not be fully state funded, consistent with other forms of education and training for that age group.  In addition to the shared concerns about the 16-18 age group, proposed new funding rates for 19 to 23 year olds will make future apprenticeship provision unviable in many business sectors.  The apparent removal of area and disadvantage funding elements could mean funding rates cut by half for the most vulnerable and needy learners on apprenticeships.  The end result would be that these learners would have the choice of an apprenticeship taken away from them.  It may be a big ask but AELP is also calling for apprentices at level 2 and level 3 to be fully funded for productivity and social mobility reasons.

It’s a leftover from the free marketers in the previous administration but the new government really should abandon the idea of employers being able to negotiate a price with a training provider for the delivery of apprenticeship training.  There is no other part of DfE’s education and training system where the rates for delivery are not set.  We believe that keeping negotiated prices will lead to a fall in quality of provision as prices are driven downwards.  Such a policy encourages inappropriate behaviour and we are already seeing employers asking providers to pay them to have access to their levy – this has to be wrong.  The solution is all apprenticeship funding should be at fixed rates for each standard or framework.

Also on our shopping list with the government is a reworking of its proposals to reform the subcontracting of apprenticeship training which will meet the needs of employers and safeguard specialist provision while introducing the appropriate controls and transparency.  The approach to the new standards and end point assessment needs to be properly reviewed – another area of concern for the NAO.  AELP wants to ensure that unintended consequences are avoided because currently the risk of policy and delivery failure is extremely high.  The best way to avoid major problems and a bad start to the levy next year is to ensure that proper transition arrangements are in place.  We have articulated a set of solutions in our consultation response (http://www.aelp.org.uk/news/submissions/details/submission-29/) and hopefully we can make good headway on them with the government in the short time available.

Mark Dawe is chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (www.aelp.org.uk)