Working to Learn (Ii): the Proposed Solution

Working to Learn (ii): the proposed solution

Presented by: Phil Hodkinson

the Manchester Metropolitan University

Crewe School of Education

Based on collaborative publication authored by Karen Evans, Phil Hodkinson, Ewart Keep, Malcolm Maguire, David Raffe, Helen Rainbird, Peter Senker, Lorna Unwin, to be published by the IPD in September 1997.

CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

University of Huddersfield

16-18 July 1997

'Policy and Practice in Vocational Education and Training'

Abstract

The Working to Learn proposals are intended to provide young people with a broad, work based education. Not only is this the best way to prepare them for a future of uncertain change, but it is also the best means of allowing them to grow and develop as people. However, there are other stakeholders with a legitimate involvement in work based education, in addition to the learners. A central design principle, therefore, is that the Work-based Baccalaureate should be a partnership, between employers, the state and professional providers of training and guidance. That partnership will function at national and local/regional levels. However, partnership is also important at the level of the individual young person or employer, and the structure of the initiative needs to reflect the legitimate needs of these different partners. Diagram 1 illustrates trainees’ entitlement under our proposals.

Working to Learn will centre on the development of job-specific competence within the work place, in ways similar to current youth training schemes and the Modern Apprenticeship. However, it will go much further than that. The young people will also develop skills and understanding about the occupational sector they are working in. They would also receive educational breadth. While some of this would be directly related to employment, some would not. This educational breadth is essential to allow personal growth, and to give them the foundational preparation for future changes in career and work.

Introduction.

Central to the development of a high quality work-based route is a recognition that the workplace can be a creative and motivating site for learning and that an integrated and holistic approach enabling young people to combine on and off-the-job learning experiences is required. Both the workplace and off-the-job situation must be organised in such a way as to ensure the young person can demonstrate as well as acquire new skills and knowledge. This might require the development of new pedagogic approaches, practised in such a way as to create meaningful links between learning, production and work organisation. Young people need to be encouraged to question and critique workplace practices and to incorporate new developments.

Young people will receive a variety of learning experiences. They would receive a balance of on, near and off the job learning. The nature of this balance might vary from occupational sector to sector, from employer to employer, and from young person to young person. Determining that balance would involve equating the needs of the different stakeholders, and determining the nature of local facilities. Off the job experience might be on the employer’s premises, or elsewhere.

All young people would experience a minimum of two different work placements. For larger employers, this might entail moving from one department to another, as was often done on traditional apprenticeships. On other occasions, it might entail spending time with a different employer.

In recognition that young people change, that original choices of training placement might prove to be unfortunate, and that a key aim of the Baccalaureate is to nourish the growth of the person, the scheme would build in the opportunity to change occupation, at least once, with no penalty to the young person, the employer or a training provider. Furthermore, all young people would be entitled to a period of work sampling, if appropriate. On current schemes, if this happens at all it is normally at the beginning. However, for some young people it may be better placed part-way through, for example if they become dissatisfied with an original job choice.

A key part of learning a job is to acquire extended experience in that job. For this reason, and to make possible the greater breadth advocated, full-time training towards a Work-Based Baccalaureate should be a minimum of two years, with the possibility to extend for three where necessary. Those who learn fast should be stretched by developing their skills, knowledge and understanding further, not by early completion. We envisage that the three levels of ‘entry’, ‘foundation’ and ‘advanced’ set out in the Dearing Report will provide for part of the framework. Within this, each young person would have a tailor-made programme, designed to meet their individual needs and circumstances.

Central to such provision would be the role of the Local Learning Co-ordination Unit (LLCU). The unit would have the prime responsibility for balancing the needs of the various partners involved in a training programme, whilst giving the legitimate needs of the young trainee primacy. Financial and regulatory functions will be operated at local level through the LLCU. We envisage that there will be four kinds of training provider relating to the LLCU: employers, group training schemes, private training organisations and further education colleges. The last three would have to establish liaison arrangements with the trainee’s employer through the LLCU.

To develop an individualised training programme, a flexible form of Action Planning would play a central role. This would differ from the action plans which have constrained developmental work and have tended to become bureaucratic and ‘paper-driven’ in their operation. It would focus on the evaluation of past and present experiences and on self-managed learning in order to anticipate future actions. The action planning need not be goal directed, unless setting targets was appropriate in a particular situation.

The Full-time Traineeship

Based on the successes of previous work based schemes, we would regard full-time traineeships as the best option for most people. The full-time traineeships would consist of an integrated programme of the types of content and experiences outlined above. They could be employer or non-employer centred. Employer focussed schemes would depend upon the employer having the ability and interest in organising the whole programme. This would depend on having acquired Approved Trainer status. In such cases, the learning coordinator could be a member of the firm involved, and the firm would be paid for the non-job-specific training that was provided.

In schemes that are not employer centred, the role of the employer would vary according to opportunities and interests. Some small employers may only feel able to provide structured on the job experiences. In those cases, up to the equivalent of two days per week would be spent ‘off the job’, with training provided by others. The exact balance between employer and other providers would be negotiated by the Learning Coordination Unit, for each trainee.

The Part-time Option

However, if these proposals are to succeed, it is necessary to provide a part-time option. This would make training available to young people who, for a variety of personal reasons, cannot or do not wish to train full time. For example, a young mother may wish to spend time with her child, and some who have left home may need part-time employment to make ends meet.

The part-time route would also enable employers who were only willing/able to provide work experience to be involved. In some occupational sectors using some such employers may be the only way to get enough placements for trainees.

For those following the part-time route, a minimum of the equivalent of two days per week training would be compulsory. This might involve off and near job experience, and also short placements with additional employers who were prepared to do some training.

For those on the part-time route, a minimum of three years would be required for completion of the Work-based Baccalaureate, extended to four or five when the circumstances demanded.

Can all the necessary ‘work placements’ be provided?

The scheme is designed to provide both carrots and sticks for employers to participate in the scheme. Those employers who are least able to offer training can play their part by providing employment in the part-time route, or work-placements in the non-employer-centred schemes in the full-time route. The full-time route is flexible enough to allow different levels and types of employer involvement. At the same time there would be the stick of compulsion. No employer would be permitted to employ a young person under 18 years of age without providing at least the two days release required under the part-time scheme. Employment would have to be part-time or to offer training within the scheme.

How Can the Proposals be Introduced?

A major difficulty with the current youth training system has been the attempt to impose detailed, top-down specifications, without any clear developmental strategy. This has been made worse because too many new initiatives have been introduced too quickly, each one seeming to learn relatively little from its immediate predecessors. Above all, there has been little involvement of training providers, local employers or local Trades Unions in the development of the schemes.

Partly to avoid these pitfalls, these proposals have concentrated on setting out broad principles. The detail should be determined through a developmental process. There will need to be a carefully thought through and realistic development strategy, based upon the following principles of procedure:

(i) An adequate lead in time.

There will need to be a period of at least two years between a decision in principle to introduce the Working to Learn proposals and the first intake onto the scheme.

(ii) Planning through Partnership.

Once a decision is made to introduce the proposals, a National Consortium should be established. This body should be given adequate time to work out broad structural details of the new scheme, as a partnership between government, employers, Trades Unions and others. This would be paralleled by work within broad occupational structure groupings, developing the detailed specifications for content within scheme guidelines.

(iii) Maximise Local Involvement in Planning the Detail of the Scheme.

As much of the detailed planning as is practicable should involve local planning groups. National and occupational area frameworks will have to be developed and adhered to, but centralised prescription should be restricted to those things that are absolutely necessary.

(iv) Begin with provision that already exists.

It is impractical to create enough completely new training organisations to deliver programmes of this magnitude from the outset. Therefore, as development planning progresses, it is important that initial training requirements that can be delivered in a majority of existing training situations. Furthermore, clear support structures must be planned and provided to improve and advance that base line provision into something closer to the ideal.

(v)Work Towards a New Qualification.

For the full potential of these proposals to be realised, it is essential that a new qualification is introduced, as part of a unified structure of post-16 education and training. However, the introduction of the scheme should not wait until after such a structure to be in place. To begin with, qualifications for young people following the programmes will have to be a combination of those already existing. The essential point is that the breadth of experience should be demonstrated. If progress towards a unified qualification system is slow or blocked, a second stage may be necessary. This would be to create one over arching vocational qualification, which was designed to meet the needs of the new programme. However, this should be seen as a stage on the way to a fully integrated system.

(vi)Continuous Improvement.

If guidelines such as these are followed, there will be a progressive development and evolution of the programme. However, that evolution must not end once the full scheme has been introduced. The scheme must build in mechanisms for continual improvement. There should be periodic reviews every five years. The systems for ensuring training quality should support increasingly demanding standards of provision. There will be an on-going need for quality training for mentors and training providers. This will be facilitated by the new funding regime, which minimises disincentives arising from payment by recruitment and results.

(vii) Integration with other parts of the education and training system

The successful introduction of these proposals will depend upon the extent to which they can be integrated with developments elsewhere in education and training, which lie beyond the explicit focus of our report. We believe that many of the principles advocated have relevance in these other education and training arenas. Perhaps above all, government and employer commitment to supported continual development in many related fields, such as full-time education, higher education, adult education and lifelong learning and employer based staff development would enable a gradual move towards a greater integration between them, based on principled pragmatism. It should be possible to avoid the pattern of the recent past, of continual cycles of repeated revolutionary change.

1