UVAC Response to the Richard Review

UVAC Background–The University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) is a not for profit membership organisation, established by the Higher Education and Higher Education in Further Education sectors to champion Higher Level Vocational Learning. We research and publish good practice in higher level work-based learning, have our own academic journal Higher Education, Skills and Work Based Learning, published by Emerald, organise conferences and workshops and promote the key role universities and further education colleges play in the development of Apprenticeship. In recent years we have undertaken extensive work on progression from Apprenticeship to Higher Education and in supporting and developing the university and further education college role in Higher Apprenticeship. Two UVAC members are leading Higher Apprenticeship Fund partnerships. UVAC’s Chair, Professor Joy Carter, Vice Chancellor of the University of Winchester, has been asked by the National Apprenticeship Service to act as the Higher Apprenticeship champion for the university sector. Professor Carter’s role involves working with UVAC to advise on the consultation, the development of Higher Apprenticeship at degree levels and championing the university role in this area.

UVAC welcomes the Richard Review; we are, however, unsure as to how the current National Apprenticeship Service consultation Meeting Employer Skills Needs: Criteria for Higher Apprenticeship at Degree Levels will feed into the Richard Review. It is important that the Richard Review does not pre-empt the issues covered in the National Apprenticeship Service consultation.

1. Principles

1.1 What should the aims and objectives of apprenticeships be?

1.2 Who should apprenticeships be for?

1.3 What outcomes should apprenticeships aim to deliver – for individuals, for employers, and for the wider economy?

Apprenticeships must be work-based employer led learning programmes designed to enable individual learners to acquire the knowledge and competencies required to perform a defined job role. Apprenticeships should be focused on enabling individuals to maximise their potential in work and for employers to develop the staff they need to meet their business objectives.

Historically, a key problem with Apprenticeship has been the glass ceiling at level 3, with Apprenticeships not typically available beyond level 3 and relatively few Apprentices progressing to higher level learning programmes. With the recent development of Higher Apprenticeship we believe this glass ceiling can be broken. Accordingly, we believe a key aim for Apprenticeship should be the development of a work-based craft/technician/managerial-professional progression route enabling individuals to enter apprenticeship at level 2 and be able to see a clear progression route to managerial and professional job roles. Apprenticeship should focus on enabling employers to recruit and develop their staff at levels 2 to 7 on the basis of business need and individual ability and aspiration. Not all Apprentices will want to progress, but progression opportunities need to be outlined so those with the aspiration and ability have the opportunity to realise their potential.

We find statements and actions that position Apprenticeships as an alternative to university as unhelpful and inaccurate. Higher Apprenticeships are already available that incorporate higher education/university qualifications. The choice is not therefore between an apprenticeship or university, but in future Apprenticeship should be positioned as leading to and at the higher levels of learning incorporating higher education or equivalent qualifications. Demonstrating that Apprenticeships can and do incorporate Higher Education qualifications should significantly enhance their status, particularly with parents and teachers. Similarly, presenting Apprenticeships as for the ‘non academic learner’ is unhelpful, instead they should be seen as being for individuals who want to learn while they work. Apprenticeship should be positioned as work-based learning programmes leading to specific job roles and enabling individuals to develop the knowledge and competencies or at higher levels the professional competencies required by employers for specific job roles.

We find the policy prioritisation of Apprenticeship on age groups unhelpful. Apprentices do not tend to follow linear learning pathways like those following traditional ‘A’ level and full-time university programmes. An apprentice may not have the opportunity or aspiration to progress to the next learning level immediately after completing an Apprenticeship. The Apprenticeship system should support such ‘un-linear’ learning, particularly as apprentices disproportionally come from lower socio-economic groups. Supporting progression routes to Higher Apprenticeship and other higher level learning programmes should be seen as an approach to supporting social mobility.

2. Content

2.1 What should the defining features of a high quality apprenticeship be? What should a high quality apprenticeship involve or contain?

2.2 Should this differ for different sectors, types of learners or types of employers?

2.3 How can we ensure the training offered really reflects employers’ needs?

2.4 What role should qualifications play in an apprenticeship, and how can we ensure these qualifications are fit for purpose?

An Apprenticeship should be a preferred route to acquiring the knowledge and competencies or professional competencies required for a particular job role and as a learning programme that equips an individual to commence the next level work-based learning programme in their chosen occupation. An Apprenticeship should contain a qualification(s) that accredits the knowledge and competencies required for a specific job role and the functional skills and PLTS required by an individual for the job role and to progress to the next level of learning. We understand and recognise the value of ERR. We find the separation of knowledge and competency qualifications at the higher levels to be artificial and would prefer reference to professional competencies and for a single integrated knowledge and competency qualification. Where appropriate, Apprenticeship should link in to and support a licence to practice. We believe that in order to ensure consistency, standing and equivalence, Apprenticeships at the same level should be of approximately the same size in terms of credit values across different sectors. Flexibility between sectors should focus on the actual content of the Apprenticeship in terms of the knowledge and competency requirements. We would also argue that there should be some flexibility to tailor the knowledge and competency outcomes to meet the needs of specific employers.

3. Delivery

3.1 What should government’s role be with regard to apprenticeships?

3.2 What should employers’ role be?

3.3 Who should pay for what?

We are surprised that these questions do not also cover private training providers, colleges, awarding organisations, universities and other partners who play a fundamental role in Apprenticeship. Working with employers, training providers, colleges, universities and other partners, Government should set the vision for Apprenticeship and minimum standards. Employers should define the knowledge and competencies or professional competencies their sectors require for job roles at specific levels.

Employers must always drive the development of Apprenticeship – this should differentiate Apprenticeship from other learning programmes. The responsibilities employers have for Apprentices should be clearly outlined in Apprenticeship agreements. In addition to supporting work-based learning, day release, appointment of mentors, and funding agreed components of the Apprenticeship, employers should be committed to supporting an Apprentice to maximise their potential.

State funding for Apprenticeship at level 4 and 5 is confusing and inconsistent. Such inconsistencies are perpetuating the academic/vocational divide and acting as a major barrier to the engagement of universities in the Apprenticeship agenda. Specifically, inconsistencies between HEFCE and SFA funding regimes act as a major barrier to the involvement of employers in Higher Apprenticeship and the expansion of Higher Apprenticeship where employers (as many do) want to use Higher Education qualifications to accredit knowledge and competence. Higher Apprenticeships using Foundation degrees, or other HE qualifications, to deliver their specified knowledge and competence requirements are not eligible for public funding support. Higher Apprenticeships based on ‘non-prescribed’ HE qualifications (such as NVQs and QCF Certificates and Diplomas) are eligible for funding support from the Skills Funding Agency (SFA). Under the current rules (SFA, 2012), we believe such Higher Apprenticeship frameworks taken by employers with less than 1,000 employees are eligible for funding at 50 per cent of the cost of the competency and technical knowledge components; larger employers are entitled to 25 per cent funding. In essence, non-university qualifications are receiving state support, whereas university qualifications are not – a level playing field is urgently needed. Explaining this inconsistent position to employers is proving difficult, is creating problems and reflects badly on all concerned.

4. Delivering value for money and boosting access

4.1 How can we ensure value for money for government investment in apprenticeships?

4.2 How can we boost employer and learner demand for apprenticeships?

4.3 How can we ensure that learners of all abilities get fair access to apprenticeships?

The extensive expertise universities and colleges have in the development and delivery of work-based learning higher education programmes should be build upon and the value of this investment maximised. Foundation degrees have been developed with employers and many, in addition to the development and accreditation of knowledge, support the development and accreditation of competence needed for specific roles. Honours and Masters degrees have also been developed that accredit knowledge and competence. This expertise should form the basis for the ongoing development of Apprenticeship at levels 4 to 7.

The route to boosting employer demand is primarily to demonstrate that Apprenticeship is an employer-driven programme focused on developing the performance of new and existing employees to meet business objectives.

Demonstrating that the Apprenticeship family covers levels 2 to 7, and can lead to or incorporate a degree, will help persuade parents, teachers and careers advisors of the value of Apprenticeship and its potential as a work-based route to professional and managerial roles. Using the current Higher Apprenticeship fund projects and showcasing the employers involved as case studies could help with this process. A family of Apprenticeships from level 2 to 7 demonstrates that Apprenticeship is for a range of learners including those with high abilities.

University Vocational Awards Council University of Bolton Eagle Campus Bolton BL3 5AB

Telephone: 01204 903355 Fax: 01204 903354 Email:

Company number 3758134