WOLF REPORT: Q&A Feature with Dr. Mark Brenner, CEO BEST Ltd

 

I welcome the publication of this report and the intention of the Government to follow its recommendations in full. I believe this is a timely and comprehensive report. While I believe some context needs to be applied to its recommendations, I generally applaud and agree with all its conclusions.

 

I absolutely agree. BEST’s apprenticeships have a strict entry requirement of grade A-C GCSE in English, Maths and a technical subject. We expect people coming onto our programmes to have that level of attainment. I realise it’s not true of all apprenticeships and my own view matches that of the vast majority of employers; you just can’t ignore the fundamentals of numeracy and literacy.

 

 

I believe some apprenticeship programmes are already very flexible and responsive to local requirements, but admittedly not all. There has been a delay in responding to what the industry wants and that needs to change.

 

While I understand that in some situations local requirements should be taken into account, there is also a big demand for national standards and national apprenticeships, particularly in our industry. Contractors can be very mobile, moving all over the country. An apprentice could be training in London and then working in Glasgow. In that situation you need a unified national approach to give people the flexibility to undertake and complete apprenticeships.

 

 

Absolutely. Recently, BEST took part in a pilot incentive scheme. We were asked to design the programme and encourage employers who might never have taken on apprentices, to do so. We offered a wage subsidy of £35 per week for the first 12 months of the programme. We estimate this led to a 20% uplift in apprenticeships with very little, if any, drop out. Based on this experience and our understanding of the industry, we believe an incentive scheme for apprentices would be successful.

 

However, I do have a few words of caution. Employers can’t take on workers – even an apprentice – if they don’t have enough work. Reductions in public sector procurement contracts have not helped the pipeline of work for many firms. In the construction industry many contracts last just six or 12 months, which makes it difficult for employers to commit to a two year plus apprenticeship. Very often in the past they have turned to migrant or agency workers, who can be brought in and out of the business on a shorter term basis

 

If we could combine incentivised apprenticeships, with a stronger contract pipeline for construction firms, I believe we would see a big uptake in the numbers of apprenticeships in the UK.

 

 

 

As a UK tax payer I have to agree that we need to get better value for money, but I also believe that the construction industry needs training providers for a very specific reason – we need the uniform national delivery of content. Local colleges cannot support a national agenda, so we need training providers who can act on behalf of the industry on a national basis and can also facilitate local provision and work with local employers.

 

BEST recognised the need to streamline delivery of apprenticeships some time ago and has set up a national college network to ensure quality and consistency. Working together with colleges, we’re able to offer the same apprenticeship package to a learner anywhere in country. With many construction firms working across lots of different regions, this uniformity is essential.

 

Colleges are often able to deal only with the technical theory elements of learning a trade. This means some college leavers have a technical certificate but no measure of workplace competency. BEST brings its own work-based assessment provision service and national network of assessors – so we close the gap left by the colleges on a national basis. A London college could not support work-based learning in Manchester or Leeds, but we can.

 

Furthermore, the opportunity for apprentices to complete the work-based element of their training can be variable and often depends on the type of company they work for. For example, an apprentice plumber may have to prove that he or she can plumb in a bathroom suite. If the apprentice’s employer is handling a car park contract, that apprentice might never have the opportunity to plumb in a bathroom suite. What BEST does is to arrange for the learner to complete their programme at another location (with another firm in our employer network) under proper assessment conditions. Colleges are not able to do that so easily because you need access to that range of work-based environments.

 

 

 

I would agree that there is an urgent need to clarify roles in the provision of apprenticeships. I believe the best long term scenario would be to have a wide range of national college provision of apprenticeships. At the moment it is fairly disparate. Working with colleges and national and local employers, a national training provider like BEST could then ensure quality and accessibility to schemes and provide national employers with the reassurance of uniformity.

 

Trade associations are the representatives of the sector, and by bringing together their knowledge of industry requirements with the government’s ability we can look to and plan for future needs. We should look critically at all areas of apprenticeship provision to ensure that administration costs are minimised and quality is maintained.

 

A further issue about funding covered in the Wolf Report is the move from bulk funding to per student funding per programme. This is a useful challenge for providers. It forces us to prove our value and while it requires us to change, I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

 

What I firmly believe is that the industry has to address the issue of progression. It’s a fact that people in the current system are hemmed in. It’s too prescriptive too early and this means full potential is not always realised.

 

Apprenticeship programmes in our sector tend to stop at level 3. We should be encouraging apprentices to progress beyond that point if they want to. The launch of the BEST professional apprenticeships (www.bestlicensetopractice.co.uk) last year will help to address this issue, but we need to do much more. In theory, any level 2 apprenticeship entrant (post GCSE) should be able to progress through a training scheme right up to level 7 and become a Chartered Engineer.

 

 

 

In France and Germany, the proportion of 25-28 year olds holding vocational qualifications at level 2 or above is 30 % higher than in the UK. It’s 60% higher in those countries for attainment at level 3 and above.  

 

We should forget about the traditional career ladder, and instead think about a climbing frame – with the opportunity for young talent to move across and up or up and across through the interlocking ropes of vocational and academic options, including apprenticeships. It’s our job at BEST to create that climbing frame for young people, providing the structure to move from school, through academic and work-based learning right up to degree and masters level attainment.

 

I acknowledge that there are barriers to this kind of progression. Employers often want apprentices to ‘earn’ as quickly as possible and therefore resist more development. Apprentices themselves may want to move away from learning as quickly as possible, but there will be people who could achieve much more if only they had a clear route to do so.

 

We should stop regarding apprenticeships as a single trade specialisation. The Wolf report says we narrow people down too early. I agree. By creating barriers and shutting down options so early in careers we are failing to realise the potential of our young people.

 

- E N D S -

 

 

BEST (Building Engineering Services Training) is the leading UK training provider for the Building Services Engineering (BSE) sector, covering heating and ventilating, air conditioning, refrigeration, plumbing and electro-technical industries. Since 1990 BEST has successfully managed the training of over 10,000 apprentices and introduced them as skilled personnel into the building services industry.