Apprenticeships: what the government isn’t telling you
Vince Cable released the latest stats on apprenticeships in England today, which show that more than half a million people began a placement in 2011/12.
Understandably, it’s being presented by the government as a good news story. The coalition smashed its initial target of 50,000 more apprenticeship starts in 2010/11, and the latest figures prove that numbers have almost doubled in the last two years.
All three main parties support apprenticeships. Today the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, announced that he would oversee the creation of 33,000 more off the back of the HS2 high speed rail project, if elected.
So what’s the small print?
More people are starting apprentices than ever, but success rates have gone down.
Today’s statistical release shows that only 73.8 per cent of apprentices actually finished their placement in 2011/12, a decrease of 2.6 percentage points from the year before.
Success rates had previously been rising year-on-year since 2007, but they fell across all age groups for the first time last year.
A bigger cause for concern is the fact that the average apprentice is getting older and fewer teenagers are signing up.
Most of the big rise in the total number of apprenticeships is driven by huge increases in the “over-25s” category, as this graphic shows.
To put this in perspective, 44 per cent of people who began apprenticeships last year were aged 25 or over. Three years earlier only 23 per cent were in the oldest category.
Over-25s are now the biggest age group, and this category is growing much faster than any other.
For the first time, the 2011/12 figures show a fall in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds signing up – a 1.4 per cent drop to 129,900.
This is a worrying trend - for two reasons.
First, it suggests that apprenticeships may not be the answer to the persistent problem of youth unemployment, as the coalition has suggested in the past.
It may be significant that Vince Cable didn’t mention youth unemployment today, or joblessness at all. Instead, he talked about making up for a skills shortage in the job market.
Second, BIS research suggests that almost half of over-25s who do apprenticeships would have got the same kind of training anyway if the government had not intervened.
BIS statisticians found in a report last year that the ”deadweight” – where the state ends up paying for something that would have happened anyway – was far more marked among older apprenticeships than teenagers.
As many as 44 per cent of over-25s would have been trained anyway, even if the government wasn’t offering to meet up to 50 per of the cost.
The implication is that employers are just shifting the cost of training to the government, meaning that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are effectively being wasted.
If the age profile of the average apprentice is going up, the proportion of wasted spending is probably going up too. This is not something Mr Cable enlarged upon in his interviews with the media today.
Quality or quantity?
We know that government spending on apprenticeships has increased, from just over £1bn in 2009/10 to nearly £1.4bn last year.
But the numbers of apprenticeships are going three times more quickly than the amount of money available to pay for them.
The obvious conclusion is that we are spending less on the average apprenticeship, which suggests that as the numbers go up, they are getting shorter.
We have known for years that not all apprenticeships are created equally. Last year the National Apprenticeship Service reviewed 87 cases where apprenticeships were being delivered in less than six months and failed to meet official quality benchmarks.
Last year the National Audit Office found that in 2008/09, 12 per cent of placements took six months or less, rising to 19 per cent in 2010/11.
But in these latest figures a few months spent learning how to stack shelves and a three-and-a-half-year stint at Rolls-Royce both count as the same.
In fairness, the government has made some effort to improve duration and quality.
Last year a minimum length of 12 months was introduced. But that was only for 16-18-year-olds, and it only came in after these latest stats were compiled.
A BIS spokesman told us there have been repeated interventions to improve quality in recent years, including a crackdown on employers who only took on apprentices for short stints over slack holiday periods like Christmas.
Update: Business minister Matthew Hancock asks us to point out that the government scrapped so-called Programme-Led Apprenticeships (where people were trained in colleges and not paid, rather than attached to an employer) in 2011 because of concerns about quality). These made up 21 per cent of apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds in 2009/10. He says: “To improve quality you have to remove some poor provision, and to make more rigorous you have to make harder to succeed. So the rapid growth while we do those things is impressive, and the provision we shut down due to not having jobs attached more than offsets the decline in numbers for 16-19s.”
By Patrick Worrall




There are 19 comments on this post
I’ve also heard tell that many apprenticeships, such as in supermarkets, are very dubious, largely serving as an excuse to pay below normal NMW, paying the NMW ‘apprenticeship rate’ instead.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Funding available for over-25s apprenticeships is sector specific. In my sector – IT & web, over-25′s receive no funding at all. So the cost of training for them is carried by the employers entirely. It’s wrong to suggest that there is a deadweight being carried by the state, without quantifying the size of that proportion.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
the private sector getting involved in earning profit, from state functions, is just money for the peoples in governments mates. Then you have the swing door from politics into company jobs. It really is theft. Saying the government cannot find trained people to run it as a public service, makes them daft and implies the nation hasn’t a educated enough workforce.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Labour created almost 1m jobless youth in 13 years, the Con/Libs would do the same. Time for the Alternative the LibLabCons arent working!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In health and social care funding for training for NVQ’s (now called diplomas) has been taken away or has such restrictions that not many qualify, the government wants people to hold at least a Level 2 in hsc diplomas and so the only way most people over 25 can get it is through appretiship training, carers earn minimum wage or just above and can’t afford to pay themselves or develop proffessionally to the level 3 unless its funded as appretiships are, and this has been done despite the outcry about the care (or lack there of) for vulnerable adults!!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
im sorry but all the conjecture of the decisions being made by govt , are a little pointless and useless , as i see it the only reasons the tories , are making all these changes , is two- fold , 1 , they want to divide and conquer the society , which thatcher cultivated ,of competition so called , basically dod eat dog .
2 i think its all linked to being a member of the e e c , which wants more money every year from the govt , which ofcorse means the british publc .
it reminds me of the wigs taking back all power from the labourers , and it looks like the laboueres are letting them take it , , the govt are destroying the very fabric of our society , and turning it into and over to the corperates
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When Labour introduced ‘Train to Gain’, which was initially intended to address skills shortages, there was a large growth in providers in England.
There was growth in 16-18 starts between 2009 to 2011 as Train to Gain funding started to show signs of being withdrawn, it eventually became restricted and providers who’d enjoyed a profitable period diverted their attentions to the under 19 age group, hence the growth.
Quality across providers was questionable, as many providers, and I include FE Colleges in this, went for ‘bums on seats’ to cover potential losses from Train to Gain.
After Train to Gain, the brand, finally dilluted the coalition loosened apprenticeship age restrictions and providers were permitted to go for all ages. Naturally, a provider can attract volume with 25+ (a supermarket for example) and this takes away the identity of the apprenticeship brand.
There should be no celebration of what here, these aren’t new jobs and the majority won’t be “up-skilled”, but will obtain certificates for doing what they do every day.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Are those not completing apprenticeships able to claim benefits?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Are boys rather than girls not completing or vice versa? It would seem to be important to know why.Are they not completing because they do not like the discipline of the work environment.?
Work for some is not liked or wanted. It can be a difficult problem if benefits is a viable option.
Many have their priorities wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What they don’t mention is that many of these “apprenticeships” aren’t really apprenticeships (ie, they don’t address genuine skills gaps, eg engineering / construction, which has been crying out for years for new talent). Now we have “apprenticeships” in customer service, retail, hum-drum factory work and all sorts of others. What used to be known as the Office Junior is now an “Administration Apprentice”, thus diluting the point of apprenticeships totally.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why shouldn’t people of ANY age become an apprentice?
We want workers to be flexible and pursue multiple career paths as markets and technology changes.
Surely we should congratulate and support ALL apprentices?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The fact is that with the economy down the competition is high. Not to mention that some people just do not have the guts to be themselves and try too hard to impress people offering opportunities. Real talent is rare and we have to accept it. Those who make it would possibly be good on their own as well, given the financial background as self employed people.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The word “äpprenticeship” is now used for what used to be called government training schemes. Apprenticeship used to meen three to four years training with a real employer and a real (small) wage, leading to industry recognised skills and quqlifications that would make a person employable for life at a good wage. This is called being “time served” and it is where all the electricians, plumbers, welders, instrument technicians etc. etc.come from. It is the only thing that employers are interested in. A couple of years ago government decided to increase the number of apprentices by calling all the make work, rip-off training schemes apprenticeships as well. Most of the people in the media have been decieved by this because it remains a mystery to them where skilled people come from.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Almost every government minister has only experience of a public school and/or elite university background. [True, Danny Alexander used to sell ice creams. But only as a time filler].
What could they ever know of skilled jobs?
Most national Editors have similar backgrounds. How would they know what or how a plumber learnt his trade?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am an assessor of Health and Social Care. A huge majority of my apprentices are in the over 25 age range. I have found in general that care homes are not prepared to pay for training for their staff. Since the funding for over 25s has been stopped in the last couple of months, I have found that care homes are not paying for their older staff to train and are instead taking on younger people. Generally they are taking under 19s so they can pay them the very low apprenticeship wage to save even more money.
Therefore, it is working to get more young people into employment so I am not against the withdrawal of funding for over 25s. I also agree that the government should not be using tax payers money when the responsibility should be with the employer to pay. Unfortunately, I feel that care homes are often not committed to developing their staff. Most of my apprentices are not allowed any time during their working hours to commit to their apprenticeship and have to meet me on their day off or at the end of their shift which I find absolutely shocking. I think there needs to be stricter rules that are enforced on employers that companies must give their staff time during their…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m currently in the middle of an apprenticeship and the experience that I’ve had has put me off apprenticeships completely. Whether that be down to working for what I’ve began to realise is an awful excuse for a company, or whether it be because of the scheme, I couldn’t say, but most apprentices I know feel used, and as if they are disposable.
Like or Dislike:
0
0