What is proposed?Removal of the word “Modern” from “Modern Apprenticeships”, changing Foundation Modern Apprenticeship to Apprenticeship, and Advanced Modern Apprenticeship to Advanced Apprenticeship
Engineering employers have never been particularly concerned with the names and titles of the framework, but rather with its content and delivery.
Proposal 2
Introduction of “Young Apprenticeships” for 14-16 year olds.
Giving young people the opportunity to access high-quality vocational learning is welcomed by employers. Although a number of health and safety issues mean that under-16s will not be able to take part in many workshop activities, the opportunity to witness and experience the excitement of engineering and manufacturing before completing GCSEs will hopefully improve the supply of talented young people into our industry post-16. The successful introduction of the GCSE in Engineering has shown that young people across the ability range welcome the chance to move outside the narrow academic world at 14.
Proposal 3
Introduction of a “Pre-Apprenticeship” offer based on “Entry into Employment”.
We are concerned that the focus of the reforms on this level of applicant – one who is not yet capable of completing an Apprenticeship – might send the wrong signal to those considering an Advanced Apprenticeship in engineering. The majority of Engineering apprenticeships are at the Advanced level, so attracting those well below the usual level of entry is of less importance to engineering employers, than ensuring enough applicants at the Advanced level.
Proposal 4
Scrapping the arbitrary 25 year age limit.
We have long campaigned for a removal of the funding disincentive which focuses employers on young people aged 16-18. Those aged 19-24 and older currently receive significantly less/no funding, so removal of the age cap is very welcome. However, the proposals currently contain no details about how the funding will be managed. We presume the removal of the age limit will mean improved levels of funding for those over 25, but at what level, is not made clear. Ideally, we would need extra funding applied to the Apprenticeship programme to support its expansion, rather than a re-allocation of existing funds.
Proposal 5
The Learning and Skills Council to launch a major advertising and marketing campaign targeted at employers.
In certain areas of the country, demand for engineering apprenticeships does indeed outstrip supply, with more young people wanting places than are available from employers. Improving employer information about the benefits of offering apprenticeships will give those who are unsure of the value of taking part in the framework the chance to make an informed choice.
Proposal 6
Giving employers, via the Sector Skills Councils, a bigger role in the design, content and entry requirements of Apprenticeships
Engineering and manufacturing employers have always been active in the developed of apprenticeship frameworks, through the work of EEF and the Sector Skills Council for the sector, SEMTA. We are confident that our framework already meets the needs of employers, reflecting their demands for flexibility, breadth and depth of study, and balancing on- and off-the-job elements.
Proposal 7
Develop greater “portability” arrangements so that an Apprentice can take a part completed Apprenticeship with them if they move employer.
Engineering Advanced Apprenticeships can take up to four years, a longer period than other apprenticeships. It is therefore sensible to ensure that young people and employers can be confident in the transferability of the various elements.
Proposal 8
Create a “clearing house” for school leavers.
EEF already provides a service for engineering companies and prospective apprentices through its website www.apprentices.co.uk . We would expect any national initiative to work with us to develop the system for other sectors – we do not wish to compromise the quality of what is already working for engineering.
Proposal 9
Work towards awarding “accredited” status for an Apprenticeship.
The current apprenticeship is not technically a “qualification”, but employers recognise it to be such. Our concern with this proposal is that it would mean that awarding bodies (such as Edexcel) would therefore award the Apprenticeship, rather than the Sector Skills Councils which currently control the frameworks. While SEMTA for our sector has the advantage of a linked awarding body (EAL), other sectors might struggle to retain control of their frameworks.
Proposal 10
Explore the development of credit-based qualifications to better meet the needs of employers
As long as the quality of the overall apprenticeship system is not compromised, employers welcome the unitisation of qualifications, which enable them to tailor training frameworks to their business needs.
Proposal 11
Review financial incentives for apprentices.
Apprentices in engineering are among the highest paid across all sectors, reflecting the level of study, commitment and achievement expected. We believe that the engineering apprenticeship does not suffer in comparison to other sectors’ apprenticeship salaries, nor in comparison to other jobs (without training) which young people might consider.
Proposal 12
Consider financial incentives to encourage more SMEs to get on board.
This is absolutely key to the success of apprenticeship expansion. In engineering, much of the first year involves off-the-job training at a college or group training provider, while the apprentice also expects a salary. Employers are therefore paying a great deal “up-front” in training costs and salaries, but not receiving any return, as the apprentice is not “on the floor”. Small firms in particular, cannot afford this vast initial expenditure, so financial incentives to give small firms an initial boost would be extremely welcome. As long as the Sector Skills Councils stay close to their employers, we can be confident that the needs of small firms are met by the apprenticeship frameworks.
Proposal 13
Introduction of an 8 week probationary period
While for engineering apprentices, this will not be quite so valuable as for those who find themselves in the workplace from day one, it will still give both apprentice and employer the opportunity to review their commitment to the programme. Although the apprentice will most likely have spent the eight weeks in a training provider or at college, they will have a much clearer view of the demands and rewards of an engineering apprenticeship. There would be less need for probationary periods if all young people received better quality careers advice and guidance, which adequately prepared them for the requirements and expectations of an apprenticeship.