In early 2015, when Nick Boles was skills minister, he criticised the “unbelievable proliferation” of apprenticeships framework available, promising “what we will achieve is many fewer standards”.

A few months later, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that there were now over 140 Trailblazer groups active that had collectively designed or were in the process of designing over 350 standards.

This example shows in microcosm some of the issues the government has faced over the past few years whilst reforming apprenticeships. The analysis of the issues that need addressing is clear, and the commitment is laudable and wholeheartedly meant. But the end result? Not always so much.

Which is why, three and a half years after the government receiving Doug Richard’s review of apprenticeships, and committing to “endorse his vision for the future of apprenticeships and the key steps we will need to take to get there”, the report today for Policy Exchange by myself and Nick Boles’ former senior adviser Tom Richmond suggests that as many as a third of all of the new apprenticeship standards do not line up with the best-in-class definition of what an apprenticeship is. Many of those we identified do not have the features determined as necessary by Richard - including 20 per cent off-the-job training, being focused on a skilled occupation, being for those new to a role, or having reliable and valid end point assessments. Looking forward to 2020, the report concludes that without change, it is entirely possible that £500 million a year could be spent on such apprenticeships.

‘Absence of a stretching definition for apprenticeships’

So how is it that we have come to this situation? Our report details a series of miscalculations which were put in place right from the beginning of the reform process in 2012 and 2013.

• ​The first one was the absence of a stretching definition of an apprenticeship from the government. An apprenticeship was defined simply as “a job with training”, whereas the International Labour Organisation defines it as “a training programme that involves employment”. From this less than ambitious definition of apprenticeships, all other errors followed.
• Similarly, the “gateway” process put in place for approving the new standards did not have sufficient requirements to mandate only high quality standards. There were imprecise requirements on to what a “skilled occupation” meant, how a training plan ought to be developed, or what assessment criteria were needed.
• Thirdly, plans for assessment were ill-defined. Insufficient weight was given to who the body would be who would regulate assessments in a rigorous yet proportionate way. This is an issue that is still not yet resolved now.
• Fourthly, although the government accepted the analysis of the Richard Review that apprenticeship funding should be a three way contribution between government, employer and apprentice, how this was to be done was never made clear until a matter of days ago.

This list is, in truth, seriously wonky stuff. It is hardly the type of thing to seize the imagination or something that is easily communicated to those unfortunate souls who have not known the joy of immersing themselves in apprenticeships and training policy for years. But it is on precisely these details that great programmes of public policy stand or fall. 

‘Recognise the immense power of apprenticeships’

Getting it right means understanding these details, and making changes at the level of implementation. It means a greater role for Ofqual in approving awarding organisations, and taking the register of providers away from the Skills Funding Agency. It means a new “Gate 1” in the gateway process which ensures that all standards must pass a much stricter and specific definition of what an apprenticeship is and what a skilled occupation means. It means requiring a training plan for all standards which balance employer flexibility with certainty for the apprentice. It means a souped up role for the Institute for Apprenticeships with true independence guaranteed by making it a non-ministerial department accountable to parliament directly, like Ofsted. All these things are eminently achievable under the new unified Department for Education.

The government is right to recognise the immense power of apprenticeships. They offer a strong brand, high levels of employer buy in, and a mixture of on- and off-the-job training to secure high quality technical education. Apprenticeships can and should be at the heart of the May agenda: offering opportunities for all, a chance to grow the UK labour force as opposed to reliance on migrant workers, and a route to social mobility. Some of the apprenticeships we have studied and some of the apprentices we have spoken to during our work on this project are without doubt world class. But it isn’t enough to be the case for some. A country that works for everyone, not just a privileged few, can do better. Our report sets out how this can be done. 

FE SPECIAL OFFER: click here to try out a TES Further Education subscription for just £1 for 4 weeks

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES FE News on Twitter, like us on Facebook and follow us on LinkedIn