From the provider-led to an employer-led system: implications of apprenticeship reform on the private training market

Abstract

Despite expending a great deal of public money, and after many government-led ‘reforms’ to develop an apprenticeship system that rivals those found in other countries, the apprenticeship system in England still faces a number of challenges and failings, not least in the private training market. This paper explores the landscape of private training provision in the context of the most recent apprenticeship reforms and its implications for independent training provision. Reviewing the proposed shift from the provider-led to an employer-led system we suggest that the government is overestimating the readiness of industry to lead apprenticeships in England and will still rely heavily on private training provision. We propose that a high-quality system of apprenticeships requires refocusing from a single-actor-led to a multiple-actor-led system based on good relationships between ‘strong’ actors with shared cost and responsibilities.

Keywords:

• apprenticeship
• policy
• funding
• private training market
• quality

Notes

1. The public funding comes from the following government offices: the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), the Department of Work and Pensions, National Careers Service, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Department of Education.

2. The SFA approves providers and keeps the Register of Training Organisations. The approval process includes the assessment of the financial health and standing of the organisation and also considers quality indicators, if these are available. In order to get an approval, the organisation needs to submit financial statements and an online questionnaire using an automated web service (Richard 2012 82–83).

3. We define education and training marketisation as the sequence of government policies aimed at the introduction of market models into the education system, in order to devolve the state of responsibility of distributing taxpayers’ money effectively, equitably and efficiently to other actors (Chankseliani 2014).

4. The SFA investigated Elmfield Training on allegations of improper use of funding (SFA 2014b). After going into administration, Elmfield Training was purchased by another ITP (FE Week 2013).

5. These policies were focused on three main areas: provision of information on skills, encouraging employers’ voluntary commitment to training (the Skills Pledge) and establishing a legal right for employees to take time off to train (Time to Train) (Brown, Harris, and Fletcher 2011).

6. In the direct payment model, employers register apprentices and report claims for government funding through a new online system. Government funding is then paid directly into their bank account’ (BIS 2014b, 30). In the PAYE model Employers register apprentices through a new online system. They then recover government funding through their PAYE payments’ (BIS 2014b, 30). In the provider payment model, government funding continues to be paid to training providers, but they can only draw it down when they have received the employer’s financial contribution towards training’ (BIS 2014b, 30).