Exploring the characteristics of a quality apprentice … the... · Exploring the characteristics...

1

www.investorsinpeople.comExploring the characteristics of a quality apprentice employer

Title

Exploring the characteristics of a quality apprentice employer July 2017

http://www.investorsinpeople.com

2017

Authors Dr Lidija Mavra Iceberg Research

Alice Grey Investors in People

Investors in People represents 25 years of people management excellence. Our internationally recognised accreditation is held by over 11,000 organisations across the world. The Standard defines what it takes to lead, support and manage people well for sustainable results. By developing, publishing and upholding good practices, Investors in People’s mission is to raise the standard of people management for the benefit of everyone.

@IIP

www.investorsinpeople.com

/InvestorsInPeople.UK

http://www.twitter.com/iip


http://www.facebook.com/InvestorsInPeople.UK/

3


A focus on employer quality

Paul Devoy CEO of Investors in People

Increasing the number and quality of Apprenticeships is essential to provide the UK economy with the skills needed for future growth and prosperity. For individuals, an apprenticeship offers a paid job, training and qualifications to industry standards, as well as a career path for the future. Apprenticeships therefore offer huge benefits for both the employer and the employee.

This report explores the characteristics of a quality apprentice employer, highlighting the vital role of the employer in providing excellent apprenticeship provision for the benefit of both the apprentice and the business, as well as their wider community.


4


Mike Brown MVO Commissioner Transport for London

Chair Strategic Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce

I am acutely aware of the importance employers, whether in the private, public or third sector, place on creating the conditions for their organisations to succeed. Key to this success is a need to invest in our people, particularly those who join with little or no prior work experience. The success of the UK economy depends on this.

That is why I am pleased to present this report on what good employers do to give their apprentices rewarding and career-building experiences.The research which Investors in People (IIP) has undertaken clearly highlights the need for excellent employers to ensure that apprentices have a high quality and valuable experience in a positive work environment.

The findings set out in this report show the key characteristics of high quality apprentice employers. I urge employers to consider these areas and ask “are we the best that we can be or should we be doing more to deliver great work experiences for apprentices?”.

I am excited about the next phase of IIP’s work and the possible development of an employer quality mark. I believe this would support the development of apprenticeship standards across the UK and help prospective apprentices make an informed choice when applying for an apprenticeship, based on both the quality of the apprenticeship standard and the quality of the employer.

Foreword


5


Contents

6 Executive summary

6 Intention of the project

6 Hypotheses

7 Literature review: summary of findings

8 Primary research: summary of findings

12 Investment in and motivations for recruiting apprentices

13 Recruitment methods and challenge

14 Apprentice support, development and progression

15 What makes a good apprentice employer?

16 Conclusion and next steps

17 Primary research methodology

19 Literature review

19 Introduction

19 Initiating apprenticeships: employers’ motivations and recruitment processes

22 Nature and quality of apprenticeships in the UK

27 Impact of high and low quality apprenticeships

31 Summary of key findings

33 Conclusions and scope for further research

34 In-depth interview findings

34 Apprenticeship motivations and vision

36 Recruitment

38 Induction and initial impressions

40 Work roles and relationships

43 Training, development and review procedures

46 Post-apprenticeship development and impacts

50 Survey findings

50 Perceptions of apprenticeships

52 Investment in and motivations for recruiting apprentices

54 Recruitment methods and challenges

58 Apprentice support and development

60 Apprentice retention and progression

62 Employers’ commitment to quality

63 Hypotheses

65 Conclusions

67 Key recommendations and next steps

68 Acknowledgements

69 References


6


Intention of the projectIn light of the government’s commitment to growing the number and quality of apprenticeships in the UK, and creating new provision for them via measures such as the new Apprenticeship Levy instigated in April 2017, this research aims to explore what quality means in employers’ offer of apprenticeships. Specifically, the project explores key stakeholders’ perspectives on this, engaging with apprentices, employers and training providers, probing their views on how we can know and measure employer quality, and what the impacts are of high quality apprenticeships. The work highlighted in this report represents the first phase of a broader research effort into defining the criteria required for a quality apprenticeship provision with the ultimate aim of developing a quality framework to help promote a better and clearer understanding of excellent working practices and enable the accreditation of high performing employers in regards to their apprenticeship provision.

The research first consisted of an extensive literature review into evidence around quality in apprenticeships, to date, aiming to probe any key gaps and gain a better understanding of what quality means with regard to employers’ offer for apprentices. This understanding and the highlighted gaps then inspired the exploration of certain key themes in greater depth via a mixed methods study, consisting of in-depth interviews with apprentices, employers and training providers, and a quantitative survey with employers nationwide. The results of these two primary research phases yielded several hypotheses with regard to how we can conceptualise and measure employer quality in apprenticeships, which subsequent phases of our research will test.

HypothesesFrom the combined perspectives of apprentices, employers and training providers in our research, the following are what we hypothesise to be the major aspects of a high quality apprentice employer, and what we will be testing in the next stage of our work.

• High quality employers have an ongoing commitment to apprentices’ training and development.

• High quality employers have a diverse approach towards apprentices, from recruitment through to payment policies.

• High quality employers provide consistent and dedicated support for apprentices.

• High quality employers have clear progression routes in place for apprentices at the start, and are transparent about them.

• High quality employers have a good and/or well established working relationship with their training provider, where constructive communication and troubleshooting can take place throughout the apprenticeship.

• High quality employers are strongly motivated to take on apprentices for the benefit of both the company and apprentice growth.

Executive summary


7


Literature review: summary of findingsThe review focused on employers’ offer for apprentices and the work practices most conducive to a high quality apprenticeship, beginning with recruitment and going on to cover apprenticeship design, training and development provision, support provided to apprentices in the workplace, and evidence around progression routes and apprentices’ retention following their post. The literature review also endeavoured to include apprentices’ and training providers’ reflections on employer quality, probing the aspects that they considered made an employer appealing and lent themselves to a good apprenticeship experience.

In conducting this review, several key gaps emerged which informed the subsequent stages of this research. While there is substantial literature on how apprenticeships can benefit employers, little has been written about employers’ own motivations for taking on apprentices and what apprenticeships mean to them in the first place. This was seen as a key point to address given additional implications that employers who are motivated by outputs for their business alone do not necessarily lead to a quality outcome for the apprentice. An adjoining question of interest that emerged here was the extent to which employers who take on apprentices purely for reasons of business gain provide as quality an experience for apprentices as employers who balance these requirements with an authentic motivation to help their staff develop and grow. The same comparison was questioned in relation to employers purely seeking economic benefit versus those who also aim to create a positive social impact.

There also emerged a need to conduct further, more in-depth research into how employers highlight quality in terms of the fair and inclusive design of their apprenticeships, from recruitment through to practice.

This is important not only in rhetoric but in the ways this is embedded within their policies and day-to-day commitments. This was found to be particularly relevant given ongoing preconceptions about apprenticeships with regard to ‘typical’ apprentices taken on in certain sectors based on socio-economic, ethnic and gender factors.

In terms of the actual content of apprenticeships, it became evident that the ways in which employers measure and demonstrate their offer of meaningful work for apprenticeships needed to be explored in more detail, especially given the variety of employer-led case studies and apprenticeship promotional material that provides good rhetoric but with uncertain bases.

Finally, the literature review revealed considerable scope for providing fresh, unbiased perspectives on apprenticeships, most notably from former apprentices’ points of view. The concrete impacts of a good quality apprenticeship in the workplace from employers’ own perspectives also emerged as a gap in the literature.

Overall, several markers of employer quality were highlighted. However, the review also indicated that these remain somewhat fragmented, with key perspectives missing and further probing needed in areas such as employer motivations, apprentices’ views of quality and what could be improved, and how the quality of work content on an apprenticeship can authentically be gauged. The subsequent primary research stage of the project engaged with these gaps.


8


• Quality at recruitment stage. All the apprentices interviewed reported having had overall positive recruitment experiences, with no evidence of discrimination emerging. While most employers asserted that they did not discriminate by background, certain patterns of a ‘typical type of apprentice’ nonetheless emerged. These included gender in engineering and construction, where mainly males were taken on, and socio-economic background in media, where active policies had to be put in place to avoid mainly attracting middle class applicants. Given that most of these employers had diverse strategies of accessing and recruiting apprentices, including proactive outreach in schools and colleges, and via training providers, the key implication here is that a good quality employer is one who makes a concerted effort to engage non-typical apprentices.

• Quality at induction stage. Overall, high quality inductions were viewed by both apprentices and employers as enabling an apprentice to understand the organisation’s nature, structure and, crucially, be clear about what was expected of them and what they could expect the employer to provide. All apprentices had signed formal contracts and stated being paid at, or above, the apprentice minimum wage. Apprentices particularly appreciated being taken through a detailed account of the organisation’s mission and values, and having the chance to meet the team they would be working with informally prior to induction. The employers echoed this, agreeing that having a detailed induction was important, especially for younger apprentices who may be new to the world of work. Employers varied in terms of setting key objectives for apprentices at the start, with some having pre-set targets and others flexibly instructing the apprentice as they went along, dependent on the nature of each apprenticeship.

Primary research: summary of findings

In-depth interviews• Apprenticeship motivations and vision.

Overall, apprentices expressed that they had become interested in apprenticeships in the hope that this would further their career and help them build knowledge and experience in a particular field, as well as having the opportunity to earn while learning. When asked about why they thought employers were interested in taking on apprentices, interviewees drew out a contrast between employers who wanted apprentices as cheap labour and those who were prepared to invest seriously in them. For their part, employers highlighted the growth of the company and developing future staff as a key motivation for taking on apprentices, often seen as symbiotic with helping those apprentices to develop by investing in good quality training for them and providing them with meaningful work opportunities. Another key employer motivation that emerged was wanting to help people in the community, especially young people who may be disadvantaged in today’s labour market. Employers typically saw their basic commitments towards apprentices to be ensuring that they reap the full benefits of the opportunities offered them, that they are treated like other members of staff, and that they strive, wherever possible, to keep apprentices on in a job afterwards. Training providers also saw good quality employers as those who were keen to develop their apprentices from the start and who offered meaningful, relevant work. In contrast to this, low quality employers were seen as those who just wanted another ‘body’ to perform routine tasks, with no training or mentoring provided.


9


Some employers also emphasised that they made it clear to apprentices they would be treated the same as any member of staff, establishing a sense of equality that many apprentices also appreciated.

• Quality in work roles. The majority of apprentices valued the work they were given, expressing that it was meaningful and challenging enough. They especially appreciated the chance to rotate around the organisation, work with different teams and, in some cases, go to off-site events, implying that variety is a key marker of quality in terms of their work content. Being given responsibility and trust were also important facets in helping apprentices find meaning and growth in their work. Both apprentices and employers agreed that having meaningful work to do was vital; this needed to involve constant learning and growth, but it also needed to be taken in context given the varying demands of different industries. Some apprentices contrasted this type of work with previous experiences where they were not able to contribute in a proactive way but felt they were mainly there to fill a routine position, indicating that a lower quality apprenticeship is one where the work is more prescribed and limited, and apprentices do not receive opportunities to develop and grow.

• Quality in work relationships and culture. The apprentices interviewed typically linked positive experiences of apprenticeships with being offered consistent and tailored support, and being respected as equal members of their team. This was contrasted with negative experiences with previous employers, of not having adequate support and feeling anonymous and disconnected, rather than as a valued team member. In most cases, apprentices received this support from line managers and other colleagues with whom they worked on a day-to-day basis. Some also had a dedicated mentor with whom they usually discussed more informal aspects. In line with this, several employers also highlighted their key strength to be developing and supporting apprentices in a highly tailored, open and approachable manner.

The majority of employers had a regular one-to-one meeting structure in place for apprentices and their line managers/mentors, as well as formal appraisals during which they could troubleshoot any issues the apprentice was facing. The implication here was that quality, hands-on employer support facilitates apprenticeships that are adapted to the individual, that help them harness their potential and that are appropriate for the apprentice in terms of their experience and capacity.

• Quality in training and development. While the nature of the training and development provision that apprentices were given varied widely according to each apprenticeship/level, most apprentices valued employers’ willingness to be flexible and their understanding, for example if apprentices needed to attend day release at college or if they were struggling to manage the academic and vocational aspects of their apprenticeship. Apprentices also felt it was important to know their employer was committed to their learning and training, for example by providing in-house and off-site training opportunities, and, in some cases by their line managers/mentors personally helping them go through tasks they were having difficulties with. Employers who were perceived as having little interest in the apprentices’ real development were negatively portrayed. Both apprentices and employers highlighted the fact that training and development provision needed to be well coordinated between the employer and training provider, with some apprentices providing examples of where the training provider had been lax in communication. For employers, a commitment to training and development was seen as an automatic element of good apprenticeships as it ultimately benefitted the company in the long run. For their part, training providers viewed high quality employers as those who were willing to cooperate with the training provider in terms of enabling assessor visits, apprentices’ day release and other associated aspects.


10


This was dependent on various factors such as role viability and budgetary constraints, among others. For employers, the positive impacts of apprenticeships mainly included apprentices completing their qualification; the employers’ investment in the apprentice paying off by having them stay on as a valuable member of the team contributing to the company’s success; economic benefit to the business by being able to attract more contracts due to greater capacity enabled by apprentices; and giving something back to the community. Training providers saw high quality impacts to be successfully completed apprenticeships, apprentices being retained by the employer, and the employer maintaining an ongoing relationship with the training provider for future apprentice cohorts.

• Overall recommendations as to what makes a quality employer. The main recommendations that apprentices gave in terms of identifying high quality employers were employers who: treat an apprentice as equal members of staff; have a good reputation in the industry and/or local community; are committed to their staff’s training, development and growth; are transparent about the possibility of future employment; are willing to offer above the minimum apprenticeship wage; and are willing to provide mentors to support the apprentice throughout their time. Employers provided similar recommendations, the most frequent being that candidates should look for employers who are committed to apprenticeships and do not see them as a cheap labour option, as well as for employers offering a good internal development structure for all staff, including apprentices. Training providers felt that quality was enabled by employers who were committed to working with both the apprentice and the provider in ensuring the apprenticeship went smoothly, and who have progression routes in place.

Low quality employers were perceived as not adequately supporting apprentices, both in terms of their day-to-day work content and potential interpersonal issues.

• Quality in performance management. Apprentices valued being treated like any other member of staff in terms of being subject to the same appraisal system, rewards/incentives and consequences in case their targets were not met. Some apprentices also highlighted their own part in being motivated and willing to perform well – a view echoed by several employers, who emphasised that apprentices’ own attitudes would determine the degree to which their training and development were fruitful. Overall, employers identified few problems with their performance management processes, and very rare occasions when apprentices had had to be disciplined or let go. Having flexibility and an open mind during these review processes was seen as important, as was an understanding of how individual apprentices learn best.

• Quality in progression routes for apprentices. The majority of apprentices interviewed had either gone on to permanent roles with the same employer following their apprenticeship or were planning to do so. For most, this had been a clear expectation from the start, which their employers had consistently encouraged them with. Overall, apprentices felt they had achieved a substantial amount with their apprenticeships – impacts that were clearly linked with some of the high quality traits they identified in their employers. These included successfully completing their apprenticeship, helped by the support, flexibility and training provision they received from their employer, and being in full time work as a result of being offered the position. Collectively, the employers had an estimated apprentice retention rate of 50–90%.


11


Employer survey

• 62% of the surveyed employers agreed or strongly agreed that apprenticeships are a career route designed for young people.

• 50% agreed or strongly agreed that apprenticeships are a way of providing hands-on, practical training to existing employees.

• While 47% of employers in total said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that apprenticeships are for less academic students, as an alternative to A levels and/or university, 30% of employers in total agreed, strongly agreed or somewhat agreed.

• While 67% of employers said they somewhat disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that apprenticeships are a way for organisations to take on cheaper staff, almost a quarter of those surveyed (23%) said they agreed or somewhat agreed.

• Collectively, these findings indicate that some ambivalence remains as to the perceived purpose and skills level of apprenticeships. While the dominant views portray these to be valuable experiences for both young people and existing staff, and at a range of skills levels, a sizeable proportion of the survey respondents still saw apprenticeships as a potential source of low-skilled labour to be exploited.

Perceptions of apprenticeships

Strongly agree Agree Somewhat

agree Neither Somewhat disagree Disagree Strongly

disagree

Apprenticeships are a career route designed for young people 26 36 19 5 5 8 1

Apprenticeships are a way of providing hands-on, practical training to existing employees

20 37 20 12 7 4 0

Apprenticeships are a good way of up-skilling existing staff 15 34 22 9 12 7 1

Apprenticeships tend to be low-skilled positions 6 7 10 10 23 32 12

Apprenticeships are for less academic students, as an alternative to A levels and/or university

4 13 13 10 13 31 16

Apprenticeships are a career route only for those looking to work in the trades (e.g. mechanic, plumber, hairdresser etc.)

5 7 5 7 14 32 30

Apprenticeships are a way for organisations to take on cheaper staff 4 9 14 7 9 28 29

Apprenticeships are a good way for people to earn while they learn

38 48 10 2 2 0 0

Based on 141 responses


12


For which of the following reasons does your organisation not employ apprentices?

There is a lack of staff capacity to mentor and support an apprentice

Our industry/sector is not suited to apprenticeships

We do not need any apprentices

Other

There is a lack of clarity as to what apprenticeships are

An apprentice would be more work than it would yield benefits for the organisation

There is a lack of information regarding how to go about employing an apprentice

We have no links with training providers or colleges

We prefer to hire graduates

I don’t know

We have recruited apprentices before and they didn’t work out

New apprentices’ skills levels would be too basic for the organisation

17%

22%

15%

11%

9%

6%

13%

21%

26%

6%

6%

20%

Based on 54 responses – Respondents were asked to select their top three answers.

• The highest motivations for recruiting apprentices were stated as follows: developing talent and future business leaders (60% of employers); providing local young people with better career opportunities (58%); fulfilling their organisation’s social mission (27%).

• The main motivations for employers not recruiting apprentices were a lack of staff capacity to mentor and support an apprentice (26% of non-apprentice employers surveyed); and the industry/sector not being suited to an apprenticeship (22%).

• While 46% of survey respondents said that paying the Levy will encourage them to recruit more apprentices, only 8% mentioned the Levy as a motivation for recruiting apprentices.

• 77% of employers said they pay above the minimum apprenticeship wage.

• These results show a strong overall pull in the direction of benefitting the community and investing ethically in potential future talent as well as improving one’s own business, in terms of employers’ motivations for recruiting apprentices. This could be inhibited by a lack of sufficient resources or perceived suitability of the sector to the apprenticeship model. The government-run Levy scheme was not seen as a major motivating factor.

Investment in and motivations for recruiting apprentices

17% of employers think there is a lack of clarity around what apprenticeships are.


13


Recruitment methods and challenge

• Employers’ biggest hurdles when recruiting apprentices included not being able to attract quality candidates (46%), applicants not having the right employability skills (44%), and competition from other employers for the best apprentices (29%).

• 13% of all employers said that they were not able to attract enough female apprentices, particularly in the transportation and storage, electricity, gas and steam, and real estate industries; 13% of employers overall also said that they were not able to engage candidates from a diverse range of ethnicities, with public sector organisations particularly struggling with this (47% gave this response), compared with only 2% of private sector organisations and 6% of charities.

• 95% of employers stated that they have an equality and diversity policy in place for recruitment practices. This, combined with the findings as to their main recruitment methods, would suggest that while active measures are taken to engage a diversity of people, they do not always work in practice and may serve to compromise the quality of employers’ engagement with potential apprentices.

What are your biggest hurdles when recruiting apprentices?

Not being able to attract quality candidates 46%Applicants not having the right employability skills 44%Competition from other employers for the best apprentices 29%Applicants not having the right level of English and/or maths 24%Applicants not having the right subject related qualifications 17%Applicants being discouraged by their parents to do an apprenticeship 15%Not being able to attract apprentices from a diverse range of ethnicities 13%Not being able to recruit enough female apprentices 13%Other 11%Applicants dropping out of the application process to go to university 10%I don’t know 6%Not being able to recruit enough male apprentices 4%

Not being able to attract apprentices from a diverse range of socio-economic backgrounds 2%


• The most common methods for recruiting apprentices were: through a training provider (55%), by employers speaking in schools and colleges (30%), attending careers fairs (30%), via social media (30%), and via word of mouth (26%).


14


No

Yes

I don’t know

74%

20%

6%

Apprentice support, development and progression

• The main ways in which the surveyed employers support and/or develop their apprentices are: the organisation assigning apprentices a line manager for daily work related support (75%), regular feedback sessions with the apprentice (71%), and setting clear objectives throughout an apprenticeship (65%).

• 74% of employers confirmed they offer clear progression routes for all apprentices taken on. Among these, 56% of employers stated that they keep on between 75% and 100% of their apprentices, and a minority (5%) said they retain between 1% and 24%, linking employers’ clarity of outlining these routes with the final outcome for the apprentice.

• In terms of trends, the smallest organisations (2–49 staff) were most likely to have progression routes secured for their apprentices, as 89% of them gave this response – almost 20% more than the largest employers (with 1000+ staff). Those in the private sector were most likely to say they retained 75–100% of apprentices, at 53%.

• The findings indicate that having progression routes in place for apprentices from the start is a key indicator of apprentice retention, with smaller, private sector organisations more likely to have this. This may be due to these organisations being in greater need of building up their workforce than larger ones and, due to their size, having the flexibility to carve out new roles for apprentices rather than take on large cohorts for regular role turnover.

Are there clear progression routes outlined for all apprentices within your organisation?


15


What makes a good apprentice employer?

• When asked the key characteristics that make up a high quality apprentice employer, nearly all respondents cited the importance of the employer having a commitment to the apprentice’s training and development (93%).

• Other common responses included the offer of clear progression routes (49%), the organisation being a supportive workplace (42%) and having a reputation for valuing their staff (such as holding Investors in People accreditation) (36%).

• Few respondents saw a good benefits package or links with a local college or training provider (10%) as important, highlighting that the apprentice’s working environment is a key marker of quality.

In your opinion, what makes a good apprentice employer?


93% believe that a good quality apprentice employer has a clear commitment to the apprentice’s training/qualification.

They have a clear commitment to the apprentice’s training/qualifications

They offer clear progression routes after the apprenticeship

They are a supportive workplace

They have a good reputation for valuing their staff (e.g. holding accreditation such as Investors in People)

They pay above the minimum apprenticeship wage

They offer a dedicated mentor/tutor for the apprentice within the company

They have a close link to a local college/training provider

They offer a good employee benefits package (e.g. annual leave, sick pay, bonus, etc.)

I don’t know what makes a good apprentice employer

Other

49%

42%

36%

31%

10%

1%

6%

29%

1%

93%


16


Conclusion and next stepsAs this research has made clear, there are several key dimensions of employer quality that can have an impact on apprentices’ experiences of apprenticeships, and on the final outcomes for apprentices, training providers and employers themselves. Specifically, our study has found that quality is not only to be found in the final outcome of an apprenticeship, but that it is something inbuilt at every stage and encompassing every aspect of an employer’s offer – from recruitment, through to apprenticeship design, working culture, support and training provision, and availability of progression routes.

While our research has, so far, defined these key aspects and probed the dynamics behind them, the hypotheses around these now need to be explored further. This will entail the next stage of our work into how quality employers can be identified.


17


Primary research methodology

In order to achieve the aims of this research phase, a mixed methods approach was employed consisting of qualitative in-depth, semi-structured interviews with apprentices, employers and training providers, and a quantitative survey with 160 employers.

In-depth interviews Using purposive and snowball sampling, relying on Investors in People’s network of personal contacts, the in-depth interviews engaged 15 apprentices either still doing their apprenticeship or having completed it, 12 employers (including managers and founders/owners), and nine representatives from four training providers. The apprentices were or had undertaken apprenticeships in a diverse range of subjects, including business administration, engineering and project management, among others, with levels ranging from 2 to HND (degree level equivalent), and working for employers in industries including human health and social work activities, manufacturing, construction and professional, scientific and technical activities. Likewise, the employers were based in diverse industries, including all the latter as well as administrative and support service activities, and other service activities.1

While the sample included stakeholders covering most regions across England, there were no interviewees engaged in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales (although respondents from all three regions were included in the survey sample, as shortly described). In addition, employers who do not employ apprentices were not included in the interview sample, largely because the employers engaged with were a self-selecting group who could already provide information about working with apprentices and what quality meant to them in that context.

Finally, while we did not speak with apprentices who had current negative experiences of their employers, several mentioned having started apprenticeships with previous employers where they did not have a good quality experience; these accounts were integrated with their reports of good quality to help yield balanced findings.

Tailored interview topic guides were designed for each of the stakeholder groups, based on the existing knowledge and gaps about employer quality that emerged from the literature review. The broad themes covered in each topic guide included information about apprenticeship recruitment, the extent to which employers have fair employment practices, the ways in which apprenticeships are designed and their work content, the training, development and support provision for apprentices, and post-apprenticeship progression.

The interviews were conducted by members of the Investors in People team in person and by telephone using a conference dial-in service. Each interview was then transcribed and subjected to textual analysis in order to extract the key themes emerging from each stakeholder group, and to cross-reference them across the whole sample.

1. The government’s SIC divisions were used to identify industry categories, further details available at: http://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/


18


Employer survey A quantitative survey designed to assess employers’ perspectives of apprenticeships and their practices relating to quality in this context was sent to 1068 people. 160 people responded (although not all 160 responded to all questions). Of these, 154 responded to the question of how many apprentices they take on, with 60 (39%) reporting that they have zero apprentices (‘non-apprentice employers’), and 61% saying they hired a number of apprentices (‘apprentice employers’).

The survey questions covered employers’ payment into the apprenticeship Levy and what this implied in terms of their hiring of apprentices, their recruitment practices, and the support they offer apprentices. The survey also questioned their perspectives on a range of common assumptions made about apprenticeships.

The survey was administered via the ClickTools survey platform and was kept open for two weeks, after which the data were tabulated and analysed using STATA. Survey questions with a categorical outcome, such as ‘is your organisation paying into the national Apprenticeship Levy?’ with the options of responding ‘yes, no, don’t know’, were tabulated by region, sector, organisation type and employer size. Perception/attitude questions with a 7-point Likert response scale were analysed as continuous and categorical variables (reporting means and tables) by selected cut variables, such as whether the organisation employed apprentices or not.

61%

39%employers reporting that they have zero apprentices (‘non-apprentice employers’)

employers reporting that they hired a number of apprentices (‘apprentice employers’)


19


IntroductionApprenticeships have had a long evolution in the UK. At its most basic and traditional, an apprenticeship is a type of vocational training involving a formal (or informal) arrangement between an employer and an apprentice, whereby the latter learns key skills and knowledge from their employer in order to reach expertise in a given occupational field (Fuller and Unwin, 2008). In the UK, apprenticeships have evolved since the Middle Ages from being largely focused on traditional trades to crossing occupational boundaries and reflecting ‘emerging sectors in the economy such as retail, business and information technology’ (BIS Committee, 2012). The recently launched Apprenticeship Levy for all larger employers in the UK, in force from 6th April 2017 (Department for Education, 2017) reflects a historical government agenda to engage with apprenticeships through a variety of policies, such as subsidising employers through various avenues and linking apprenticeship outcomes to students’ formal accreditation. Apprenticeships have come to be seen as a valuable means not only of boosting employment opportunities but, crucially, also boosting the skills and employability of the working population as an investment for the future (BIS Committee, 2012; Wolf, 2015).

The value of such a working arrangement to both employers and apprentices can be substantial. In particular, the benefits for apprentices can include subsequent secured employment, higher levels of employability following skills training and the attainment of qualifications, and a greater sense of autonomy and understanding of the workplace (Kirby, 2015). Considering the views of potential apprentices themselves, one report found the following top three criteria to be important for young people when considering an apprenticeship: that there is a good pay

structure in place; that the desired qualification level can be obtained; and, finally, that the placement offers future progression opportunities (IIP, 2017).

This is, of course, an ideal picture of apprenticeships – one in which maintaining high quality from start to finish on both the employer and the apprentice side is of the essence. The question then arises as to the extent to which this ideal scenario is manifested in practice. In particular, this review is concerned with the quality of employers and their workplaces, and how they can truly offer a high standard experience to their apprentices – an experience that both meets the latter’s expectations and concretely supports them with opportunity and security in the working world. Specifically, this review asks what quality looks like from the employer side and how we can know this, and it examines the impacts of both high and low quality apprenticeships.

Initiating apprenticeships: employers’ motivations and recruitment processesEmployers’ motivations for taking on apprentices What motivates employers to take on apprentices, especially considering that apprentices typically do not yield immediate economic benefits to the employer? Firstly, there is some indication to suggest that employers do this as a way of diversifying their workforce and nurturing talent that will ultimately create net economic and human capital gains for them in the future. For example, one study by a training provider found that of the employers surveyed, 83% who employed apprentices said they relied on their apprenticeships programme ‘to provide the skilled workers that they need for the future’, assuming the apprentice is retained in the business (Skills Training UK).

Literature review


20


Similarly, the National Apprenticeship Service suggests that apprenticeships can enable businesses to grow while keeping staff costs down and building skills capacity within the business (Apprenticeships News, 2017).

However, it should be noted that these reports often tend to focus on end outputs rather than employers’ initial reasoning, such as estimated financial net gain. This carries its own pitfalls. For example, despite numerous industry studies indicating that apprenticeships carry significant returns on investment for employers, and that they can increase productivity in the workplace (CEBR, 2014; City and Guilds, 2014), a report by the European Union (2013) highlights that it is, in fact, difficult to measure with certainty the extent to which apprenticeships work in employers’ favour in terms of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis, and thus the extent to which it can reasonably be considered as part of their motivation to engage with apprenticeships. The report also highlights the low availability of literature dealing specifically with employers’ perspectives on this, and the extent to which such an analysis forms part of their original reasoning for taking on an apprentice.

One UK-based, qualitative study that does do this suggests some alternative motivations alongside those relating to recruitment and an inflow of skills. These include sheer ‘inertia’, whereby employers who had traditionally trained people via apprenticeships did not see a reason to change the model and thus saw apprenticeships as the default option; and facilitating apprentices to ensure that employees held the right qualifications (Hogarth et al., 2012). This study also indicates that employers in some specific sectors may be motivated to take on apprentices as a way of serving the communities they are based in and helping young people to boost their potential.

One gap in Hogarth et al.’s study may be that employers were not questioned closely as to how they thought their initial motivation to take on apprentices may then have affected the subsequent design and progress of the apprenticeship itself. This link has been implied in the academic literature, indicating that true apprenticeship quality starts with an underlying two-fold motivation for taking on apprentices: one for the business, in terms of boosting both organisational capacity and potential future investment in the apprentice; and the other for the apprentice, with a genuine employer motivation to aid their growth and mastery in the occupation. However, to date there remains a dearth of studies with evidence to that effect among UK employers.

Apprentice recruitment It has been widely argued that the key to quality apprentice recruitment involves reaching out to a diverse body of potential apprentices and providing them with accessible information and inclusive recruitment routes. The apprentice recruitment process, inevitably, necessitates direct employer engagement with schools, colleges, and local community employment and support organisations, as well as training providers. For example, one study compares the UK apprenticeship recruitment experience to that of Switzerland, noting that the latter is consistently strong because ‘employers work closely with schools to make sure that young people have a real understanding of what their Apprenticeships have to offer’ (PWC, 2012). Employers can also provide this communication via their websites and social media networks that young people are likely to engage with.

In this context, paying attention to equality and diversity has been seen as a marker of employer quality. While in the UK fair recruitment practices are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 (The Apprenticeship Guide, 2017), there is widespread evidence of ongoing discrimination and exclusion in various areas of apprenticeships, in which the initial recruitment process


21


Apprenticeship Service, 2014), it was recommended that employers and providers work closely together to design apprenticeship programmes. This has since been enacted via the government’s Trailblazer programme (BIS, 2015), with the emphasis on regular communication and collaboration between employer and provider.

plays a key role. For example, much has been written about sharp gender segregation in apprenticeships with, for example, female apprentices being massively over-represented in sectors such as beauty therapy and childcare compared to STEM subjects (Kirby, 2015; Miller, 2005; Fuller and Unwin, 2013). In addition, it has been highlighted that apprentices from BAME groups are under-represented in certain sectors, such as engineering (ACE, 1017).

There are several strategies that have been suggested to help employers ensure diversity in their recruitment processes. These begin with carefully training staff who attend careers fairs and talks in schools to engage with diverse audiences (e.g. not only boys in the case of STEM subjects). Employers then need to consider their actual recruitment processes, such as implementing stringent diversity monitoring policies at each stage of application and ‘mandatory unconscious bias training for all staff involved in recruitment’, in order to improve the representation of BAME candidates throughout the hiring process (Kerr, 2014).

Another key aspect – and challenge – of the apprenticeship recruitment process that has been highlighted is that of confusion around what the structure of an apprenticeship should entail and the degree of employer preparation needed prior to an apprentice starting. For example, it has been found that a lack of quality in apprenticeships can occur from a lack of employers’ understanding of the apprenticeship programme they need to implement, with some employers feeling these are overly complex. This has the impact of the employer then not providing an apprenticeship that matches the expectations of either the apprentice or training provider (Ofsted, 2015). Given that it is the provider’s role to support the delivery of the apprenticeship, assess the apprentice in line with formal qualifications as well as additional knowledge and learning requirements, and deliver any additional training required to complete the qualification (National

Summary of key points: • Employers’ core motivations for taking on

apprentices can be important indicators of the quality of apprenticeships they offer.

• Motivations can include inertia, defaulting to sectoral norms, needing their workforce to hold specialist skills, hoping to invest in their workforce in the future and retain new employees, and contributing to the local community/industry in a socially impactful way.

• Employers offering quality apprenticeships reflect this in proactive and interactive, face-to-face recruitment processes in schools and colleges.

• Sectoral gender segregation and discrimination along socio-economic and ethnicity lines still exists in apprenticeships – this can be addressed through employers’ general outreach activities to foster diverse engagement, and careful monitoring of recruitment processes to ensure they are inclusive.

• There exists some confusion among employers as to what exactly the structure of apprenticeships should entail, with close collaboration needed with the provider both at the start and throughout the apprenticeship.


22


Often, these challenges go hand in hand with other dimensions of discrimination, such as gender; for example, Kirby points out that female apprentices are often paid significantly less than their male counterparts as they tend to dominate lower paid sectors, such as beauty therapy (2015). What is therefore needed is a cultural paradigm shift regarding apprenticeships, which employers can certainly feed into by offering placements that are dynamic and expansive and that provide opportunities for strategic as well as operational tasks/thinking (Fuller and Unwin, 2011).

However, legal parameters do exist to protect apprentices from unfair practices. As one report makes clear: ‘apprentices are covered by a contract of employment and have similar rights to other employees; however, they have greater protection under the law than most employees’ (CIPD, 2014). While employers are mandated to pay the apprentice minimum wage of £3.50/hr (Minimum Wage, 2017), there is strong evidence to suggest that paying apprentices more than the minimum increases apprentice retention and, crucially, demonstrates the employer’s degree of commitment to and engagement with their apprentice (CIPD, 2014).

Work content and support provided to apprentices Another important aspect of apprenticeship design that signals quality (or a lack of it) is the degree of pastoral support that apprentices receive (CIPD, 2014). Much of the literature acknowledges that supportive workplaces in which the apprentice feels valued and cared for are those that have the highest levels of success, and where the apprentice feels they have received a quality experience (Kirby, 2015; Fuller and Unwin, 2008). Providing apprentices with a nurturing, supportive and visible learning environment is seen as enabling a greater sense of personal confidence and pride in their work to emerge among apprentices and, ultimately, a greater drive to impact the workplace for the better (City and Guilds, 2015; Billett, 2004; Heinz, 2010).

Nature and quality of apprenticeships in the UKDesigning fair apprenticeships The ways in which employers design and subsequently implement their apprenticeships lie at the heart of quality. This section explores the structural factors affecting these designs and implementation, together with the key challenges that have been faced and the indicators of quality that have emerged to date.

A primary aspect to consider in terms of apprenticeship tailoring is the degree to which it is open to diverse workers and ensures fairness in their treatment, given the ongoing, widespread preconceptions that apprenticeships are primarily aimed at certain groups, such as low skilled and/or young people – two phrases that permeate the literature. To an extent, this is to be expected given the fact that before 2004/5, apprenticeships were only available to those aged below 25, with the rules subsequently relaxed and more mature learners entering (Kirby, 2015).

Preconceptions around apprenticeships being for the low skilled are also complex and ongoing. For example, Hayes (2011) argues that apprenticeships have become undervalued due to their association with primarily practical aspects, whereby ‘making things’ has ‘become unfashionable’ and thus less appealing to today’s school learners. Preconceptions around the skills level of particular apprentices and the tasks they are assigned can be particularly damaging as they carry further implications with regard to fair employment practices, such as apprentice wages. For example, a report by The Guardian in 2012 found evidence of exploitative work practices and of employers using apprentices as a source of cheap labour, in turn leaving apprentices feeling unmotivated and leading to poor quality overall (Lanning, 2012).


23


Quality in apprentices’ training and development In order to enable optimum training and development opportunities for the apprentices, employers themselves first need to have a good understanding of the apprenticeship programme they are offering (Ofsted, 2012), as this clarity will then affect the planning and cohesion of the apprenticeship itself (Billett, 2004; Heinz, 2010). This planning should also include the specific aspects and methods of apprentice assessment (such as a project portfolio produced by the apprentice, observational assessment, multiple choice tests, etc.), and who will implement them (BIS, 2015). As previously indicated, it is important that the employer and training provider work in close collaboration on this, not only at the programme design stage but throughout the apprenticeship to ensure that expectations and outcomes are aligned.

Both academic discussion and best practice examples throughout the literature emphasise that apprentices should have effective and regular training and assessment methods in place, ensuring they do not confine apprentices to the specific work site, giving them room to experience training and skills acquisition elsewhere. These modes can include teaching apprentices in small groups and having online resources to encourage extra study and help with flexibility, and having more off-the-job teaching (Fuller and Unwin, 2008; Ofsted, 2012).

With regard to process and performance management, the literature widely emphasises that there should be key training inputs covering skills that are either absent from the workplace or difficult to deliver within it, in order to enhance and develop apprentices’ transferable skills and future employability. Employers should also offer encouragement/qualifications towards career progression and, where possible, connect apprentices with other accredited courses they can take (City and Guilds, 2015; Fuller and Unwin, 2008).

Overall, employers with an ethos that is transparent and that encourages apprentices to have a sense of buy-in to the business, a clear understanding of the values and mission of the company and, crucially, how their role contributes/fits in from the start are also considered to be conducive to high quality apprenticeships (Fuller and Unwin, 2008; Billett, 2004). A thorough induction is vital to this, with some evidence that this is particularly effective if provided by older/more experienced apprentices (Ofsted, 2012). It has also been recommended that employers establish a clear apprenticeship agreement at the start (Ofsted, 2012), which is not only driven by the employer and provider but also involves the apprentice, so that the latter feels supported in co-creating the work they truly want to do (Billett, 2004).

Finally, the literature indicates that quality, from apprentices’ perspectives to a large degree manifests in being given meaningful work to do, rather than purely operational and/or narrowly specialising tasks designed purely to benefit the organisation’s productivity and capacity (Fuller and Unwin, 2008). For example, one qualitative research study focusing on apprentices in the construction, engineering and motor vehicle maintenance sectors relays the importance that apprentices place on being seen as qualified workers, not just learners or trainees, for which they need to feel that the work they are doing has substantial value both to themselves and the organisation (Oultram, 2014). Apprentices should have full access to their workplace’s plans, values and goals, not only for the purpose of gaining greater knowledge in these specific areas but also to foster their sense of inclusion within the workplace and the sense of being a well-supported member of the team (Fuller and Unwin, 2008).


24


In other cases of success, Ofsted records that some employers held a trial period for new apprentices, and/or an initial period during which their skills were evaluated, with the remainder of the apprenticeship being tailored to respond to any gaps rather than being rigidly fixed from the start.

As this section has shown, apprentices are seen to develop best when both the conceptual and functional skills they are learning are placed into context, and where experienced mentors make these relevant to employment or everyday life, giving apprentices the chance to apply theory to practice quickly. Being given opportunities for real experience, practice and problem solving is vital to apprentices’ development (Ofsted, 2012; Heinz, 2010). Overall, excellence in developing apprentices is best achieved through the ‘expansive’ apprenticeship model, where apprentices have the opportunity to participate in various communities of practice both within the workplace and beyond, with access to a range of qualifications, time planned in for reflection, and a constant vision of career progression (Fuller and Unwin, 2008).

Apprentices’ perceptions of quality A central concern of any high quality apprenticeship must be the way in which apprentices themselves are experiencing it, the benefits they are reaping (or not), and the extent to which they feel the apprenticeship has fulfilled their expectations and added to their future prospects. So what do apprentices look back on as being (or as expected to be) of the most value in an apprenticeship?

A recent report by Investors in People closely examined young people’s and parents’ perceptions of what makes a good quality employer. The research found that paying above minimum apprenticeship wage, having a clear commitment to the apprentice’s training/qualification, and having clear progression routes in place following the apprenticeship were the top three criteria (IIP, 2017).

Throughout, existing evidence highlights the importance of apprentices having a dedicated, specialised mentor to work with him/her, who has the necessary knowledge and skills to help the apprentice grow and progress towards mastery (BIS, 2015). In particular, there is emphasis on the mentor enabling and empowering the apprentice rather than solely ‘supervising’ them as an employee, given that the aim of an apprenticeship is to nurture autonomy as well as productivity (City and Guilds, 2015; Billett, 2004). Quality in apprentices’ training and development is thus also located in efficient systems that can help track apprentices’ progress at regular intervals, providing them with honest, meaningful feedback so as to enable real growth to occur, rather than trying to address errors at the end (BIS and SFA, 2014).

In particular, such processes can help with monitoring apprentices’ progress in key basic skills such as English and maths – significant because, as well as being cornerstones of the apprentices’ own skill sets, the absence of these has been found to be a common challenge for employers, leading to dissatisfaction with learners’ skills and their level of preparation to work (Ofsted, 2015). The Ofsted report investigating how apprentices’ skills can best be developed for future prosperity states that this can be addressed by employers ensuring that they have the teaching expertise and resources to help their apprentices develop the knowledge and skills in English and mathematics needed for their jobs and careers. However, given that this lack of basic skills impacts all involved, it can equally be argued that addressing this challenge should be a collaborative effort, rather than being left to providers or employers individually. As the same report shows in a case study further on, this particular challenge was well addressed with well-qualified teachers assessing apprentices’ English and maths skills upon beginning their apprenticeship, which information was then used to provide ‘lessons, resources and assessments to develop the English and skills the apprentices would need at work’ (Ofsted, 2015).


25


Young people also emphasised that a strong accompanying accreditation would be something they looked for, as would an employer providing training and mentoring in soft skills as well as formal ones. Other aspects seen as signalling quality included the apprentice receiving financial incentives and benefits, such as being reimbursed travel and childcare costs; flexible working, in particular for young women and parents; the employer offering a ‘taster course’ that would help potential apprentices decide if they wanted to stay there; and contractually enshrined employment rights, such as holiday time, that would make the apprentice feel ‘more secure… and like part of the team’ (Brophy et al., 2009).

Overall, however, the recent literature indicates a dearth of apprentices’ own, retrospective voices and evaluations of what they specifically consider to be quality employers, especially outside the context of formal research or employers’/providers’ own publications, which may contain understandable bias (such as some first-hand, retrospective data available via various employer blogs).

Interestingly, the factors closely following the above for the young people in particular were that the employer offers a supportive workplace and has a reputation for valuing its staff, with attention paid to employers’ accreditation in the latter (e.g., through Investors in People).

Case studies in the reviewed literature also indicate certain factors that are important to apprentices. For example, speaking retrospectively, one former apprentice in aerospace engineering reflects that many of the engineers who helped him had previously been apprentices themselves which, according to him, helped them support him better (Kirby, 2015). This raises an important point – that employers who have a tradition of employing apprentices may hold the potential for greater quality given the sense of identification and, by implication, greater solidarity and attentiveness to the apprentice that this can generate. Another case study of an apprentice at a financial services firm who had just completed his first year there highlighted that the best aspects were the daily challenges of diverse tasks and of completing high-level competency qualifications in order to subsequently stay in the field (Kirby, 2015). This indicates a mark of quality to be a stimulating, challenging scope of work that fully tests and encourages the apprentice’s potential.

In one report specifically questioning what young people would expect to see from an ‘apprenticeship guarantee’ (Brophy et al., 2009), the key criteria emerged as having a job guaranteed at the end, although this was acknowledged to be an ideal rather than a consistently realistic scenario.


26


Summary of key points: • Preconceptions around apprentices’ ages continue,

and will need to be considered in light of an equal employer quality mark in this space.

• Apprenticeships are still widely seen as aligned with low skilled and low paid work, leading to potentially exploitative work practices that offer little value to apprentices, and that highlight the urgent need for a cultural paradigm shift around apprenticeships.

• Apprentices themselves see offering good wages, being committed to offering the apprentice good training/qualifications, and concrete progression opportunities as markers of quality when considering an employer.

• The degree of pastoral support offered to apprentices is vital to ensuring a high quality experience as it can foster a sense of the apprentice’s buy-in and inclusion.

• Other aspects of value for apprentices were having a supportive workplace with a ‘family feel’, respect for staff, and challenging, dynamic work tasks.

• The best apprenticeships are those where the employer continuously feeds back to and co-constructs the apprenticeship with the apprentice, according to both the latter’s and the business’s needs.

• Training and development lie at the heart of apprenticeships, with employers providing specialised mentors, regular off-the-job training and comprehensive skills building programmes seen as providing the best quality experience.

• A key challenge is a lack of basic maths and English skills, which some employers have found to result in apprentices being poorly prepared for the world of work. This is in tension with the view that there should be no minimum apprenticeship entry requirements. This issue cuts to the core of what and who apprenticeships are for in the first place.


27


Impact of high and low quality apprenticeships

For apprentices In line with some of the key expectations of an apprenticeship noted by young people and other potential apprentices in the previous section, two key impacts of a high quality apprenticeship in the literature are seen to be the securing of real and sustained employment during and after their apprenticeship, and achieving their qualification targets (Ofsted, 2012; Wolf, 2015). A linked, concrete impact here is the apprentices’ perception that they have learned new and practical skills, which they then feel confident applying at work. As well as providers’ and employers’ collaborative efforts in ensuring these apprentices had appropriate training and rigorous assessment/feedback throughout, recognition has also been given to employers’ efforts to thoroughly and carefully plan the apprenticeships, and provide projects that ‘went beyond the apprentices’ current job role and prepared them well for more responsibility or promotion’ (Ofsted, 2015). Further evidence of having had a high quality experience is borne out in good future wage returns for apprentices following completion, especially in comparison with other forms of accreditation (Kirby, 2015; Wolf, 2015).

Other positive impacts for apprentices while on the job include building up their autonomy and sense of responsibility in the workplace (City and Guilds, 2015). As part of this, in high quality apprenticeships, apprentices have also been found to develop good levels of employability and soft skills, such as learning how to balance an understanding of colleagues’ needs with commercial pressures, high standards of personal presentation and punctuality, and the ability to work both in a team and independently, among others (Ofsted, 2015).

There is also some evidence to suggest that apprenticeships may be an effective way of encouraging changes in the stereotypical gender balance for a particular role, precisely owing to employers’ (and other stakeholders’) growing recognition that it is important to broaden their opportunities to a more diverse workforce (City and Guilds, 2015; Kirby, 2015). This, then, is an important factor as it not only affects future apprentices and more diverse inclusion among employers, but also the organisation itself and the broader community.

However, it should be noted that the same Ofsted report that found the above benefits for apprentices also highlighted that, overall, the quality of apprenticeships surveyed was ‘variable and too often poor’ (Ofsted, 2015), with subsequent lack of the desired work, skills and qualification outcomes for apprentices. Most notably, the hallmarks of a low quality experience are seen to be apprentices not ending up with a job and still not having attained their accreditation (Ofsted, 2012; Ofsted, 2015). This is because it was found that low quality apprenticeships did not ‘require the apprentices to develop skills throughout the apprenticeship and did not have the potential to lead to long-term employment’ (Ofsted, 2015). As one report found in 2014, the majority of apprenticeships on offer in the UK remain ‘low skilled’ and ‘dead end’, and are ‘failing to help young people find work and improve their skills’ (The Guardian, 2014).

The literature also shows that low quality apprenticeships often come with a sense of exploitation among apprentices (especially younger ones), of having been used as ‘inexpensive labour during their training and then being discarded as employees to be replaced by new apprentices’ (Ofsted, 2012; Taylor and Watt-Malcolm, 2007). Such employer perceptions of apprentices and, ultimately, low quality outcomes, can be seen as aligned with the notion of a ‘restrictive’ apprenticeship (Fuller and Unwin, 2008) – notably the identity of the apprentice as that of an employee rather than a learner to be supported,


28


The latter has been found to occur due to, potentially, significantly higher productivity amongst apprentice-trained staff who are provided with high quality training by the employer (City and Guilds, 2015), and the employer consequently having a greater pool of skilled and accredited employees to draw from in the future (Hasluck et al., 2008). This is particularly important in cases where these skills may not otherwise be immediately accessible to the business on the external job market (Hasluck et al., 2008). Crucially, such training is consistently found to involve the development of maths and English skills where needed, in response to one of the previously discussed key challenges employers face (Ofsted, 2015).

Finally, non-economic impacts for the employer have also been found in the literature as arising from a quality apprenticeship, such as enhanced job satisfaction for employees arising from taking pride in seeing young people come through (City and Guilds, 2015; Mieschbuehler et al., 2015), bringing innovation to the business (City and Guilds, 2015), and enhancing the employer’s reputation in their industry as well as the local community (Hasluck et al., 2008).

Conversely, there is research showing that employers do not always reap the aforementioned benefits from their apprentices, either during the placement or in terms of knock-on effects. It has been suggested that, from employers’ perspectives, this lack of quality can occur due to employers not always being satisfied with learners’ skills and their level of preparation for work, as the previous discussion around challenges with English and maths skills has highlighted (Ofsted, 2015). On the other hand, some employers have been found to cut training costs for their apprentices in order to make their post economically viable, ultimately reducing the quality of the apprenticeship (Ofsted, 2015) and, by implication, not enjoying the same positive impacts from it as more invested employers.

potentially leading to poorer learning and qualification outcomes. Such a restrictive context can also have the effect of only providing the apprentice with access to the specific competence-based qualification, rather than broader training that can facilitate vital transferable skills and future career progression.

For employers As previously discussed, much literature from diverse sources suggests that there may be significant positive impacts for businesses that take on apprentices. However, what is also underlined is that these primarily come from good, or high quality, apprenticeships – not merely by the act of taking an apprentice on board. As one report including employers’ qualitatively surveyed views on apprenticeships in the engineering, hospitality, retail, business administration, social care and construction sectors concludes, ‘for the employer that appropriately husbands their investment in Apprenticeships there are significant returns to be had’ (Hasluck et al., 2008). This ‘appropriateness’ or quality offer has been closely linked with employers’ initial motivations for taking on an apprentice and, importantly, aligning their business strategy with this vision, to the benefit of both sides. As one report makes clear, employers could ensure quality from the start by working closely with providers to ensure the apprenticeship will add value to their business and that it meets ‘a business need’ (Ofsted, 2015), thus ensuring the employer’s continued buy-in and enthusiasm for the experience. In some cases, this buy-in has been seen as adding to quality where it is backed by employers’ own financial commitment (Ofsted, 2015).

The major impact on businesses who provide a high quality experience for their apprentices was deemed to be the economic one – that the employer’s investment in the apprenticeship is ‘recouped in monetary terms within two to three years in most instances’ (Hasluck et al., 2008).


29


A specific characteristic of high quality employers relevant to the current research is their close collaboration and regular communication with providers from the start of an apprenticeship – throughout the recruitment, design, assessment and completion stages. This is where the intersection of employer quality with that of providers occurs, in that providers’ roles in preparing apprentice candidates for the post (e.g., by carrying out their initial assessment and ensuring they are receiving the necessary training when in post), have also been seen as key to high quality inputs (Ofsted, 2015).

On the other hand, low quality impacts for providers are those where their apprentices do not gain the skills and learning they need, nor acquire the qualifications they set out to obtain. A major impact of such a lack of quality is that of the loose label of ‘apprenticeship’ coming to be widely used and potentially associated with low-quality courses and providers that do not deliver results, thus diminishing the appeal of apprenticeships to parents, students and employers alike. Ultimately, this may lead to providers’ impacted reputations and deficits in outcome-related payments (BIS, 2015).

Some commentators have argued that low quality impacts wrought by employers also have their roots in the external policy landscape, given the close involvement of the government and third parties (i.e., training providers) in shaping apprenticeships, which may or may not always be conducive to responding closely to labour market needs (Wolf, 2015). It has been suggested that re-instating the more traditional apprenticeship on the apprentice-employer relationship, with significant investment of the employer’s time and attention, and close links with actual labour market demands, will enable employers to lead apprentices better (Wolf, 2015; Fuller and Unwin, 2008).

For providers High quality results for training providers have consistently been classified as the provider having met their outcome targets in terms of apprentices’ training and qualification needs, such as those set by each accreditation level, ultimately leading to good payment outcomes (Ofsted, 2012). These high quality yields have most often been found through interviews and surveys with employers, apprentices and training providers, using set criteria (CPC, 2006; Ofsted, 2012; Mieschbuehler et al., 2015), and apprenticeships qualifications data, including comparisons across training providers (SFA, 2014; Ofsted, 2014). A broader impact for providers who facilitate high quality apprenticeships is their good or improved reputation in the community and with employers, which can secure them further contracts and further boost their capacity to deliver high quality apprenticeships (BIS, 2015).


30


Summary of key points: • The most notable impacts of high quality

apprenticeships on apprentices are: achieving their desired qualification, gaining employment following the post, and developing their soft transferable skills to the extent that they can work productively and autonomously, as well as in a team.

• Low quality workplace practices can result in the apprentices failing to achieve their qualifications nor securing employment afterwards, as well as having had a restricted, isolated experience with little opportunity to interact with diverse work stakeholders and contexts.

• Key impacts of high quality apprenticeships for employers who invest in and nurture their apprentices include economic returns on their investment, up-skilled staff with potentially new, specialist qualifications on board, and potential innovation/increased productivity via satisfied and motivated apprentices. Soft impacts include satisfaction at having boosted a young person’s potential, and good/improved reputation/links with the local community.

• The impacts of low quality workplace practices for an employer include having a poorly prepared apprentice who is not supported with basic skills, and consequently does not add to workplace productivity; and not benefitting from the innovation, diversified workforce and potential economic gains that a high quality apprenticeship could have brought.

• For providers, the impacts of high quality apprenticeships notably include the achievement of apprentices’ qualifications and payment-on-outcome targets, as well as a good/improved reputation in the local community and with future employers/apprentices.

• Low quality impacts for providers result in the failure of their apprentices to achieve the target results, negatively affecting providers’ reputations and payment outcomes, as well as potentially attaching a negative label to the concept of apprenticeships itself.

.


31


Summary of key findings The following are the key findings that have emerged from this literature review, highlighting the markers of quality that currently exist in the apprenticeships landscape and the ways in which employers could enhance these.

A motivation that leads to quality:

• An employer motivation seen as conducive to quality is two-fold: one aspect being focused on the business, and boosting both organisational capacity and potential future investment in the apprentice; and the other benefitting the apprentice, with a genuine motivation to aid their growth and mastery in the occupation, and to provide them with a meaningful experience. Such a motivation (or lack of it) will significantly influence the quality of the apprenticeship in terms of the apprentice’s sense of inclusion and empowerment in the organisation, and their practical as well as conceptual learning.

• Employers who are motivated by making a difference in the community may doubly benefit by having a social impact as well as strengthening their reputation as a quality employer.

Apprenticeship design and practice:

• High quality employers embed fair employment practices and are vigilant not to exploit their apprentices as cheap, replaceable labour.

• High quality apprentice employers build content that is intrinsically demanding and worthwhile, with high and measurable standards built in across the occupational spectrum.

• Employers design high quality apprenticeships in collaboration with both the provider and apprentice, with inbuilt reflexivity to make adjustments as the apprenticeship progresses.

• Having an ‘expansive’ rather than ‘restrictive’ apprenticeship vision of apprenticeships will aid a high quality design, in which meaningful work is combined with challenging assessments and a genuine commitment to the apprentice’s progress and future opportunities.

Training, development and pastoral support:

• Having training and development opportunities embedded in the employer’s strategic goals and business plans, i.e., something the apprentice can be assured of receiving from the start by virtue of the company’s vision, is seen as more likely to ensure the apprentice receives the level of training and development they need.

• Specialist/in-house or external training being made readily available for apprentices is a resounding marker of high quality, with a particular emphasis on the availability of off-the-job training and time built in for reflection.

• A high quality employer will provide a mentor to work with the apprentice, with the necessary knowledge and skills to help the apprentice grow and progress towards mastery (BIS, 2015). This dynamic is supported by efficient systems to help track the apprentice’s progress at regular intervals and to provide honest, meaningful feedback in a timely manner.

• Having an organisational ethos that is transparent for the apprentice and encourages them to have a sense of buy-in to the business, a clear understanding of the values and mission of the company, and crucially how their role contributes/fits in, is key to a quality experience. This can be established from the start by giving the apprentice a thorough induction.


32


• A high quality experience will involve regular, practical encouragement in terms of future career development for apprentices, such as by giving them the opportunity to gain experience of different parts of the business/supply chain, and connecting them with wider networks and communities of practice.

Key recommendations for employers aiming for high quality apprenticeships and impacts:

• Have an expansive vision which includes a temporally extensive view, in that apprentices are supported not only in gaining immediate technical knowledge to benefit the employer, but also real practical experience and wider skills required for their future career.

• Provide ‘added value’ learning extending behind the occupation alone, such as soft and transferable skills, including resourcefulness, business-like attitudes, and autonomy.

• Ensure a clear understanding of the apprenticeship programme they’re offering and its aims, both for them and the apprentice.

• Have good, close working relationships with training providers so that expectations of the apprenticeship remain aligned between them, and in the apprentice’s best interest.

• Have the flexibility to adapt to the apprentice rather than the other way around, especially when challenges emerge.

• Take the lead on designing apprenticeships in a way that matches industry standards and is conducive to preparing the young people for real-life scenarios; these are more relevant and lead to better outcomes (BIS, 2015; Ofsted, 2015; Wolf, 2015).


33


As this literature review has shown, numerous markers of employer quality in delivering apprenticeships exist from a variety of perspectives. However, these remain somewhat fragmented, with key gaps and questions emerging as to the current identity of apprenticeships, and how to reflect employer markers of quality, in line with that identity at the same time as widening the perceived scope of apprenticeships to encourage more people to take them up.

This literature review has highlighted key areas for further research. Firstly, there is a need to examine more closely employers’ own motivations for taking on apprentices, which may prioritise their perspectives over business outcomes, bearing in mind that employers who are motivated by outputs for their business alone do not necessarily lead to a quality outcome for the apprentice. Another way of looking at this is the suggestion that employers may well benefit from an economic return on their investment in an apprentice, but only if the quality is there. Other factors to consider are employers’ alternative motivations for taking on apprentices, which extend beyond business benefits alone, such as a commitment to positive social impact. It may also be worthwhile examining whether employers with a more explicit commitment to benefitting the community may also have more diverse outreach and recruitment practices when seeking apprentices.

Secondly, additional research needs to be carried out to look at how employers highlight quality in terms of the fair and inclusive design of their apprenticeships, from recruitment through to practice, not only in rhetoric but as embedded in their policies and day-to-day commitments.

This could be particularly relevant given ongoing unease around age, gender and socio-economic background with regard to preconceptions about apprenticeships themselves, and outright discriminatory practices that feed into these.

Thirdly, in terms of the actual content of apprenticeships, the ways in which employers measure and demonstrate that they do indeed offer challenging, stimulating apprenticeships in a concrete way needs to be explored in more detail, especially given the variety of biased case studies and apprenticeship promotional material that provide good rhetoric but with uncertain bases. More broadly, thinking here would also need to involve how employers new to the apprenticeships landscape can be supported with quality criteria, considering their lack of precedent to that effect.

Fourthly, research is required into the nature of employers’ relationships with the apprenticeship landscape in general, and the extent to which that impacts on the quality they are able to offer; notably, their relationships with providers, and their view of how government policy may be affecting apprenticeships.

Finally, there is considerable scope for providing fresh, unbiased perspectives on apprenticeships, most notably from former apprentices’ points of view, and for understanding what improvements these apprentices would have made in terms of quality. There is also scope for hearing more from employers from their perspectives about the aspect that much of the literature is silent about – failed apprenticeships: why/how they think quality was compromised; how they have remedied the situation; or what they would do to remedy it in future opportunities.

Conclusions and scope for further research


34


As suggested in the literature, employers’ motivation for engaging with apprenticeships could affect an apprentice’s experience and the type of provision an employer makes available to them. To probe this further, both apprentices and employers were first asked what had originally motivated them to engage with apprenticeships. We also asked training providers why they chose to work with certain employers.

The apprentices interviewed had heard about apprenticeships predominantly from friends, family members who worked at companies that offered apprenticeships, school/college open days, previous work placements and from conducting their own online research. The vast majority said they became interested in apprenticeships largely due to wanting to learn while earning, with generally equal interest expressed in both, and, in particular, as a way of achieving a qualification that would stand them in good stead for their careers. In some cases, this was compounded by having first started university and found this not to be the right experience for them; in others, they wanted to ‘get a good head start’ over graduates who had no previous work experience, as one apprentice expressed. Still others were unsure what to do when coming out of school/college, knowing they did not want to go to university (especially with rising levels of student debt), but wanting to continue learning. As another person commented, ‘the commitment to £9k/year was too much to pay for the life experience and skills that university does provide, but which an apprenticeship would also give me.’

The latter findings related to apprentices who were between 16 and 19 years of age when starting their apprenticeships. The older apprentices interviewed expressed different reasons, one of them notably wanting to up-skill in the company he had worked

for over the past 40 years, and the other wanting to gain a foothold in the world of work and new office technology after having been out of the labour market for several years. In both cases, the apprenticeship was seen as ‘something new to put on the CV’ and to help them further their careers. Overall, the combined motivations of all the apprentices interviewed broadly point to an expectation of a valuable experience that would further their career progression and help them build knowledge and experience in a particular field.

Interestingly, across the spectrum, there was some uncertainty in terms of apprentices’ expectations of what the experience would be like. In some cases, apprentices recalled initially assuming that they would be doing largely ‘junior work’ as one person commented, with their expectations then usually being exceeded in terms of the level and amount of responsibility they actually received. Others said they had felt initially uncertain because university, rather than apprenticeships, tended to be much more widely promoted, certainly in their school circles. One of the key implications here is that apprenticeships are still not advertised in line with the actual benefits they bring; as one interviewee asserted: ‘apprenticeships could still be pushed more today in the education sector given how successful they can be.’

Apprentices gave a variety of reasons as to why they chose a specific employer. Some had prior knowledge of an organisation via a friend or family member who was currently working there. Some apprentices also knew about the employer locally and their ethical practices, feeling that the apprenticeship would thus be a ‘reputable opportunity’ for them, or would allow them to work in an area not typical for their background.

In-depth interview findings

Apprenticeship motivations and vision


35


Employers’ other motivations included apprenticeships being the industry default and the best way to train people up in niche, specialist work that, for example, graduates would not be qualified to deliver. Finally, employers mentioned needing to up-skill an ageing/low turnover workforce.

All of the reasons presented were underlined by the understanding that these aspects could only be achieved with proper investment in and care for apprentices. Within this overarching understanding, employers’ specific visions of what they were responsible for offering apprentices varied, often in line with their motivation. For example, those asserting it was the industry norm stated that their commitment was to offer fair working conditions and pay, and the best possible training to ensure their apprentices made the grade and could stay on as members of their team, as that was why they were nurturing them. Others who had specific niches they wanted to grow said their responsibility was to carefully carve out a role for apprentices and give them the tailored support necessary to see if the role was viable for the company; for example: ‘when we have a placement, there’s so much consideration taken because actually there’s not a placement there in the first place so we’ve got to create a role, so it’s got to be a good quality role. It’s got to have future development within it, they’ve got to be able to reap the rewards of everything a business can offer… And ultimately the investment that we’ve given them, we 100% want to take them on permanently at the end of that.’

Others were drawn to employers who worked in a particular niche which apprentices found unusual and as potentially providing them with an interesting experience. Still others valued the opportunity to work as part of a global company that could bring with it potential opportunities to travel and work abroad. Several apprentices, however, did not know much about the employer before starting with them, basing their selection on their desire to enter that particular industry and being close to home, with the employer ultimately surprising them in terms of the high quality they offered.

With regard to employers’ motivations for offering apprenticeships, while the specific aspects were quite diverse, they all had growth as the emphasis – usually of both the company and the apprentice, which were seen as symbiotic. As one employer stated: ‘[company name] felt that if they had a comprehensive apprenticeship programme, they would be able to pick the best people for the company and would also give people the opportunity to have a year working directly in services to benefit and value them.’ This ‘growth’ scenario was, in turn, seen to motivate employers to create good quality experiences for apprentices in terms of the training and work conditions offered them, to enable apprentices to thrive and thus benefit the company. This was particularly emphasised by employers who had started out as apprentices themselves; for example: ‘the fact that with apprenticeships you can mould people how you want and hopefully develop someone’s career to carry on what you’re doing. Someone gave me a chance in 1972 so I feel [the company] should also give a chance to the next generation.’

This last quote resonates with another strong, running theme for several employers – wanting to help people in the community, especially young people who may be disadvantaged in today’s labour market.

We look at it more as community engagement [which]… incorporates looking after our local talent so we go into schools and colleges and we’re supporting our future employees.

As one manager commented:


36


And you know a very senior figure within the company is working hands-on on the shop floor with those apprentices, and he’s a skilled toolmaker himself and he’s passing on what he knows… Everywhere you go in this place they’ve got little posters up which talk about the culture and the aims and the objectives of that business. And he’s very keen to just build that in from day one with that apprentice.’ High quality employers were also seen to be those who maintained regular contact with providers and yielded high quality apprenticeship outcomes. In contrast to this, low quality employers were seen as those who just wanted another ‘body’ to perform routine tasks with no training or mentoring provided, and those who let their apprentices go at the end of their post rather than building in provision to keep them on.

As the findings so far indicate, the initial motivations for, and expectations of, engaging with apprenticeships on the three sides examined are important in shaping the experiences to come. The following sections explore how these influences play out in practice.

RecruitmentPrevious studies show that employers’ recruitment processes are vital to establishing, from the start, a fair and equitable work environment for apprentices in which they can thrive, with discriminatory practices based on aspects of identity such as gender or ethnic background being a clear marker of low quality. In line with this, no evidence of discrimination at recruitment stage emerged from the interviews with apprentices, although some were very aware of the inbuilt biases of their particular industries and commended their employers’ efforts in trying to overcome those. For example, one female apprentice commented that she valued ‘being a female in an engineering environment, I developed quite a keen interest in trying to… question the lack of diversity’, and at recruitment stage ‘never noticed or felt any discrimination or hindrances because of that [being female]’.

The latter quote was representative of many employers. Commonly, they recognised their basic commitments towards apprentices to be ensuring that they reap the full benefits of the opportunities offered them, that they are treated like other members of staff, that the employer communicates well with training providers to ensure the academic side is fulfilled, and that they strive, wherever possible, to keep apprentices on in a job afterwards.

In line with this, the training providers interviewed emphasised that apprenticeships should be about employers providing the optimum training and development opportunities for apprentices to thrive and grow, and hopefully be retained by the organisation. Providers’ general perception was that employers take on apprentices as a way of building up exactly the skills they need ‘from the grassroots’ and nurturing a committed new member of staff, especially in cases where there is an ageing workforce or skills shortage. The following comment was representative: ‘I think they [employers] like the idea of having someone who is new to the business. And they can kind of mould them and support them and grow them into their business… And then they’ve got someone at the end who actually knows it back to front… Good employers… like nurturing those learners.’ Most providers also emphasised they would check if employers were just wanting cheap labour, in which case they may not recommend further candidates to them.

Broadly speaking, training providers also saw good quality employers as those who were keen to develop apprentices from the start, as evidenced by their training and support provision. This also encompassed employers who maintained a positive work culture, demonstrable health and safety practices, helped apprentices learn more broadly about the world of work and working relationships, and who offered meaningful, relevant work. One provider gave a good example of this: ‘we went on an employer visit recently. It was a precision engineering company.


37


by fair recruitment and later working practices could be blacklisted: ‘if the employer was asking for a type of learner, type of person, the[ir] age… If we knew that the employer was going to ask for somebody because they wanted cheap labour, or they were trying to cut down on their wage bills. Anything that was health-and-safety related… it may be that everything seems okay at the beginning but that employer takes a learner, sacks them two months down the line. Takes another, sacks them. Takes another, sacks them. So then, if this is starting to become a pattern, we wouldn’t work with those people.’ For their part, some employers commented on the hurdles of finding the right apprentice, especially in cases where they took training provider recommendations and the candidates did not have an adequate level of basic skills, or were not perceived as fully motivated at interview stage.

Employers and apprentices alike presented an overall cohesive view of what the concrete recruitment processes involved, usually including an initial application (whether online or via the training provider), sometimes a group work/shortlisting stage, and then a face-to-face interview with the employer. Apprentices particularly valued employers who made them feel relaxed during the interview, were clear about their expectations of both the apprentice and what they could offer them, and were interested in finding out about them as people. As one apprentice commented: ‘I couldn’t have been made to feel at home any more, it was just as if they wanted to get to know me a little bit more and understand what I wanted to get out of the apprenticeship, why I chose it.’ A minority of apprentices said they had had the opportunity of a ‘trial day’ prior to formally accepting their post, ‘to meet everybody and check the job was right’, the latter emphasising that she found this really useful. Some apprentices and employers also found it useful when training providers offered pre-work ‘boot camp’ in workplace etiquette and soft skills, as this was seen to give the apprentice a boost when starting their post, particularly if they were new to the world of work.

Interestingly, in discussing their equality and diversity policies, while most employers asserted that they did not discriminate by background, certain patterns or ‘types’ of apprentices did broadly emerge among some. The first of these was by gender; this tended to occur by industry, such as in the example of engineering presented by the latter apprentice, and also in construction, home engineering services such as plumbing, and breakdown services. For example, one employer in the construction sector recounted that they ‘get no females applying for electrical/mechanical apprenticeships, but we’re not sure why.’ They undertake various outreach activities and have been into schools to do ‘hands-on stuff with girls too, but none of them want to go into construction,’ meaning that white males have remained the dominant apprentice group at that company.

Another employer working in the media sector commented on previously having had a ‘typical’ apprentice in terms of their social background and, having become aware of this, was now making concerted efforts to take on a broader array of people: ‘I guess the first year they were pretty much from kind of a similar sort of… I’d say sort of very middle class background. And then, yes, I think the last couple of rotations… We’re having a lot more like different people through… With media as well, it is quite a white middle class industry and I think that’s what they were trying to [do]… to open it up so that everyone could have the opportunity to work.’

The key implication here is that a good quality employer, regardless of industry and ‘typical’ apprentice characteristics, is one who makes a concerted effort to engage non-typical apprentices, and where the latter are taken on, makes them feel comfortable from the start. Similarly, training providers viewed high quality employers as those who ‘get out there’ into the community and try to engage diverse apprentices, as well as having equality and diversity embedded in their recruitment practices. On the other hand, as one provider emphasised, employers who do not abide


38


Many also emphasised how welcome they felt at the start, and what a difference this made to helping them relax and settle into their role; as one apprentice recounted: ‘I felt like everyone wanted to take me under their wing and mentor and look after you and make sure you’re okay… when starting my apprenticeship, those first anxieties and nerves – the people in the business actually helped that because they made me feel at ease and settle in the business quite well.’

A few apprentices mentioned some minor critiques of the induction stage. Some would have liked to have had more information/detail about the company, especially where the organisation’s values were not clearly explained. Others commented that not everything had been set up for them in terms of technical aspects, such as IT; however, these were minor points.

In terms of being given clear work objectives, this naturally varied according to the type of apprenticeship, with some providing more guidance at the start and others less. In a couple of cases, apprentices mentioned that they would have valued having had something more structured from the start, especially if they previously had no workplace experience.

Following a discussion about these initial experiences, apprentices were asked why they thought their employer had taken them on. Here, those who had had prior apprenticeship experiences contrasted those with their current employer. For example, one person recounted of a former apprenticeship that: ‘the [organisation] wasn’t doing so well. I believe they were trying to keep their staff on by doing it [offering apprenticeships] as such. It wasn’t an enjoyable work place and… being able to achieve a qualification out of working there, kind of motivated people to stay.’ Another interviewee recalled her apprenticeship that she felt had not been the right one for her: ‘like there wasn’t a pool of people to choose from. I was the only applicant, and they were desperate to fill the position.’

As interviewees’ responses here show, employer quality in terms of recruitment practices is just the first step – ethics must be maintained throughout the apprenticeship. However, a good start at recruitment stage is more likely to establish a positive working relationship between apprentices and their colleagues, and help them settle into their roles. As the following section shows, a well-rounded, transparent and relevant induction is also vital to this.

Induction and initial impressionsMost of the apprentices mentioned having had a formal induction once they started with their employer, with the majority being sent their contracts to sign beforehand where their employment rights were clearly laid out. All stated being paid at, or above, the apprentice minimum wage, in line with their qualification level and the employer’s own policies, and largely being eligible for the same benefits as other members of staff. The latter point, especially if apprentices were also being paid above the minimum wage, helped to instil in them the impression from day one that they were just as valued in the organisation as anybody else, in turn helping them to feel more welcome and motivated in their roles.

Overall, apprentices’ experiences of their induction process were highly positive. They particularly valued being taken through a detailed account of the organisation’s mission and values as this made the beginning less intimidating for them, especially for those for whom this was their first experience in the workplace. Being able to build peer networks with other apprentices at induction stage was also seen as a positive factor; for example: ‘everyone was really friendly and everyone is on some sort of course or was hired in the same way as me, as an apprentice… It’s a vast demographic of people from young to old, from different places in Worcestershire so I didn’t feel like I was walking into like a difficult environment, everyone was really nice to me.’


39


Employers also described providing generally well-structured inductions for their apprentices and making it clear what was expected of them, which would be the same as for any member of staff. However, they varied in terms of their provision of key objectives for apprentices at the start, with some having pre-set targets and others flexibly instructing the apprentice as they went along – this was seen as dependent on the nature of each apprenticeship and on the organisation’s own aims with the apprenticeship, rather than as a marker of low/high quality. As the latter interviewee went on to say: ‘we treat apprentices in the same way that we treat any other permanent member of staff as well. We ensure that they have clear objectives set out from day one really. That way it helps us, obviously, provide a pathway for them to achieve what they want to achieve but also ensures that, you know, we also have to make it about our own work… so setting out those objectives from day one is very important.’

Others emphasised that they take apprentices through the company values and also ensure that apprentices know they have the necessary support in place, such as a mentor; the following quote was representative: ‘at that induction we obviously introduce them to the company, to the values, the strategy and then we talk about expectations of their apprenticeship as well, so what they should be aiming for in terms of results, what they need to do if they’ve got any issues, people they can talk to. We’ve got quite a structured mentoring scheme now and everyone can obviously contact me.’ This induction format was broadly the same across larger, global employers and smaller ones who had fewer resources, but aimed to maintain the same integrity in terms of providing clear guidance to their new apprentices, taking them through health and safety and making sure they met everyone they would be working with.

There were also contrasts drawn between employers who wanted apprentices as cheap labour and those who were prepared to invest seriously in them; for example:

Well, I think with some organisations you sort of get the impression that they just want to hire an apprentice… so they can pay them less than they can get someone in… They [her current employer] made it clear that there was real progression for me. And they’re interested in helping my development.

These responses demonstrate the apprentices’ sensitivity to their wider working environment even in the early stages, underlining the importance of employers instigating a well-rounded and in-depth induction, ensuring the apprentices are welcomed by other staff, and understanding that apprentices themselves will sense a high quality investment in them, versus one that is lacking.

For their part, the employers interviewed largely agreed that having a detailed, transparent induction was important, the latter especially for younger apprentices who may not have experienced the world of work before. They also understood their legal responsibilities towards apprentices in terms of their contractual and employment rights, with some asserting that apprentices should be paid above the minimum wage: ‘it is one of the things that we feel quite strongly about… it does have to be worth their while so we want to pay above what the stated minimum apprentice wage would be.’


40


With regard to the notion of meaningful work, there was broad cohesion between apprentices and employers that this was vital, and needed to involve constant learning and growth. As one employer made clear, ‘we wouldn’t expect any apprentice to come in and, you know, just sit for a week filing or making cups of tea’, while another highlighted the importance of ‘keeping them learning as well, you know, I think one of the main things is to make sure that throughout the five-year apprenticeship they keep learning new skills and… they don’t just do the same thing.’ This was also seen as helping to reinforce a footing of equality between apprentices and other staff, as one interviewee made clear:

Overall, high quality inductions were viewed by both apprentices and employers as enabling an apprentice to understand the organisation’s nature, structure and values and, crucially to be clear about what was expected of them and what they could expect the employer to provide. In particular, having positive workplace relationships from the start was a key factor for apprentices themselves, as this determined how relaxed and comfortable they felt, and how accepted and ‘equal’. These key motifs persisted throughout the interviews in terms of the nature of the work apprentices did and the support they received, as the following sections show.

Work roles and relationshipsInterviewees were next asked to consider the content and support structures of their apprenticeships in more detail, specifically being asked how they felt about the work aspect of the apprenticeship, the employer’s work culture, and the relationships they had with their colleagues.

The majority of apprentices valued the work they were given, and felt that it was meaningful and challenging enough. They especially appreciated the chance to rotate around the organisation, work with different teams and, in some cases, go to off-site events, implying that variety is a key marker of quality in terms of their work content. While the work content varied widely depending on the field and nature of the apprenticeship, the level of responsibility assigned – and, importantly, the trust they were shown by colleagues and managers to carry out their work – was a common thread throughout, regardless of whether their roles tended to be focused on administrative work, strategic operations, or other aspects. As one apprentice commented: ‘I do enjoy what I do… I came in from the ground up. Being where I am now that I can offer opinions and people trust what I’m going to say and they trust me to do things and work things out – to me, that’s quite a big part of the satisfaction that I get out of doing the apprenticeship.’

The point is to make sure that the work that they will be doing is work that maybe someone else within the organisation would be doing, but giving the chance to a young person to come in to prove that they can do their role and to get the apprenticeship qualification at the end of it.

Importantly, several employers emphasised that meaningful work should be seen in context, as the nature of a particular apprenticeship meant that tasks which might be seen as ‘dull’ from other perspectives were essential to the technical or other process being learned. For example, one employer in the plumbing sector emphasised that: ‘it’s all meaningful!… It’s all a means to an end.


41


This apprentice went on to contrast this experience – which turned into a positive learning opportunity – with a previous apprenticeship that she did not finish: ‘my first apprenticeship… I don’t think I was ever really pushed. I don’t think I was given the opportunity to really make any difference to the company, I was just there to… fill a job position. Whereas here I’m constantly pushed and given the opportunities to make changes and work on different things independently, with the team, so I feel like I’ve grown a lot because I’ve been given the ability to grow.’ Another apprentice echoed this by describing the initial experience in her current role, which was a bit slow to start: ‘I felt like I got through my work quite quickly and I felt, you know, like that I was asking for more work all the time and like I was pestering people. So then you tend to sit back a little bit. Like I occasionally found myself not having anything to do.’

While the latter was able to talk about this with her line manager and resolve the situation, these accounts indicate that a lower quality apprenticeship is one where the work is more prescribed and limited, in the sense that apprentices do not receive those vital opportunities to develop and grow. Conversely, quality workplaces were seen as those with room for adaptability if something was not working out in terms of apprentices’ roles. This highlights the importance of employers showing support and attentiveness to apprentices, to enable the content and structure of their work to be valuable for them. Indeed, this was a major aspect of employer quality that apprentices emphasised throughout their interviews – being offered consistent and tailored support to do, both in respect of their work and also of a pastoral nature, where they saw themselves as valued members of the team and included (such as in social events) and, again, not seen as ‘less’ because they were apprentices. As the latter apprentice went on to say: ‘I feel like, looking back now, I was just as important as an apprentice doing the work I was doing compared to any other employee in that department… just because I was an

You can’t work in a customer’s house and carry out a job without laying a dust sheet. So the first thing you learn is how to lay a dust sheet.’ The implication here is that ‘meaningful work’ needs to be taken in context rather than assigned a rigid, objective standard.

Other employers emphasised that apprentices’ work was meaningful by virtue of being part of a dynamic team and being given the opportunity to carve out their own niche; for example: ‘they’ve all got a job to do, so it is meaningful work because they’re all part of the team and part of the cog that makes the business work… they’ve all got their little niche that is theirs… [we empower] staff to make decisions and to work unsupervised and to be proactive about their work and about their learning.’

In some cases, apprentices described having faced quite challenging work environments with stresses and difficult communication, but which ultimately fostered their growth and development. For example, one female apprentice working in a male dominated environment recounted the following situation:

dealing with the industry that we deal with, it can be challenging as it’s very male-dominated. They’re a lot older than I am and when I first started people would say, oh can I speak to a man?… I don’t think you’ll be able to answer my questions… I now have the confidence to say, I think I’ll be able to solve your problem, or what is your issue, and I’ll try and help them instead of just putting them straight on to somebody else… I’ve grown up and gained confidence.


42


This indicates that employers having an attitude of respect and patience towards apprentices is conducive to building their communication skills and confidence, a finding compounded by evidence of the opposite occurring for some apprentices. For example, one interviewee had done a previous apprenticeship with a different employer and noted the lack of support there in contrast with her experience at her current organisation: ‘I find that has definitely helped in this situation… That I’m not afraid to ask questions, because I know I’m an apprentice. And they [current employer] do obviously respect me as staff, but they do recognise that I’m learning, and I will ask questions as I go through… [asked by interviewer: what impact do you think that would have if you didn’t have that kind of supportive and right environment?]… that didn’t happen at [former apprenticeship employer]. So I just felt I was working there, but I didn’t really feel part of the team, I didn’t know what I was doing, I just felt lost.’

Mirroring many of these views, several employers highlighted their key strength as developing and supporting apprentices in a highly tailored, open and approachable manner. In particular, many emphasised the importance of taking time to listen to the apprentice and engage with their concerns, and to ensure they were surrounded by a supportive working culture in general. This was seen as bound up with the level of trust in apprentices, such as access to decision making spaces and senior management. One employer described this in detail: ‘we all look out for each other, there’s not any department within this business who works in a silo… everybody works to help each other. So, ultimately, they will have interaction with everybody within their processes… they won’t be left out of departmental meetings, they’re invited to all our business.’ The emphasis here is very much on not singling apprentices out as any different to other staff, echoing the same sense of equality that apprentices highlighted.

apprentice and I had not been here as long, didn’t really make me any different… my job and my tasks were still important… And it’s quite nice as an apprentice because it makes you feel like you have a sense of belonging. You’re not here just to complete your units and get your apprenticeship over with and hope for a job at the end.’

This approach was often seen as linked with the broader work culture that employers extended to all staff. For example, in an opposite experience to the one above, another interviewee recalled her first (unfinished) apprenticeship where ‘you were seen as a number not as a person… it all seemed quite cold, you were there to do your job and do your job only whereas here, yes, you are here to do your job but you’re also part of this community where everybody cares about everybody… There’s a lot more empathy and compassion within this company than any that I’ve worked with before.’ Thus apprentices also very much valued feeling treated as an individual, with people taking the time to hear their concerns.

In most cases, interviewees asserted that they received this support from line managers and other colleagues with whom they worked on a day-to-day basis. Some also had a dedicated mentor with whom they usually discussed more informal aspects. In apprentices’ views, good quality support was also linked with the accessibility they perceived in ‘not being made to feel stupid’ by those supporting and working with them – a commonly repeated phrase across the interviews. As one apprentice explained: ‘because everyone’s so nice… you feel much more confident when you’re speaking to them because you’re going to get a polite or [inaudible] response. You’re not worried about being roasted or grilled if you’ve done something wrong.’


43


Training, development and review procedures The exact training and development provision that apprentices were given varied widely according to the nature of each different apprenticeship/level, ranging from some attending college on a weekly basis, spending the first part of the apprenticeship at the company’s in-house training academy, or learning everything on the job (with no off-site training), with regular assessor visits by the training provider occurring in most cases. The common thread throughout was, again, employers’ willingness to be adaptable and flexible with apprentices, for example, if they needed to attend day release at college or were struggling to manage the academic and vocational aspects of their apprenticeship.

It was found to be important for apprentices to know their employer was committed to their learning and training, and that they wanted them to develop and progress. This tangibly emerged through employers offering numerous in-house and off-site training opportunities, and/or being very supportive in terms of their line managers/mentors sitting down with them personally to go through tasks (including course-based ones) they were having difficulties with. Employers who were perceived as having little interest in the apprentices’ real development and just wanting them there to perform a specific role rather than grow, were negatively portrayed.

In terms of improvements to the training and development provision, apprentices offered very few suggestions, and those that were made were mainly to do with the training provider rather than the employer. For example, one apprentice recounted his experience of having great support from the employer, but not so much from the training provider: ‘we did assignments which are marked by an assessor. He works for the company and comes to visit you in your workplace every couple of months.

Most employers assigned a line manager and/or mentor to their apprentice, who could be a former apprentice, with whom they could meet to discuss professional aspects and receive pastoral support. The latter was seen as particularly important when working with young people new to the workplace, and/or those who may have come from troubled backgrounds. As one interviewee commented: ‘if stress becomes an issue potentially there are solutions to that, there are things in place that can actually help them through that period. And I guess where the apprentices so far have been younger it is always important to understand that, because it might be their first experience of work…Whilst the work is there to be done, at the same time we are very aware not to put too much pressure onto an individual.’ Some employers had dedicated helplines that staff, including apprentices, could access in order to help with this. Employers also emphasised the importance of frequent one-to-ones and yearly appraisals in helping them troubleshoot if any unexpected issues came up, or if the apprentice was not so happy in their role, thus enabling them to adapt the role accordingly. The implication here is that quality, hands-on employer support facilitates apprenticeships that are adapted to the individual, that help them harness their potential, and that are appropriate for the apprentice in terms of their experience and capacity.


44


And the end of year and mid-year reviews they were more… for the achievement of your objectives, so it was up to you to demonstrate how you’d achieved what had been asked of you at the start of the year.’

This last comment resonates with apprentices’ awareness that they also needed to be ready and willing to take up the opportunities offered them, and give their best effort in order to benefit from the quality experience being provided. As one emphasised,

But… it seems that their assessors are really overloaded. They’ve got a lot of apprentices to look after. He doesn’t have much time to talk to you. So I’ve handed in nearly all of my work and had none of it marked. I’ve no feedback on it… Communication is terrible… [employer] have been good with dealing with it but [training provider] hasn’t.’ This example underlines the fact that apprenticeship quality needs to be coordinated between the employer and training provider, as there are some aspects the employer will have no control over.

With regard to performance reviews, apprentices largely felt that these processes were fair, and appreciated being treated like any other member of staff in terms of being subject to the same rewards/incentives (ranging from e-vouchers to bonus schemes). This also meant accepting the consequences for poorer performance, which, in their case, tended to be re-set targets, no reward given, or a repeat review to give them another chance to improve on their objectives. Some apprentices were subject to six-month or yearly appraisals, in the same way as other staff. All apprentices had a manager with whom they would meet at regular (e.g., monthly) or informally arranged intervals; the latter was more common with smaller employers where staff capacity may have been more stretched, but it was not seen to adversely affect apprentices’ experiences. One apprentice spoke for many in describing the useful dynamic he had with his line manager: ‘the one-to-one were really useful… there was a lot of times where I’d said I was struggling with something and then my line manager [would] suggest some training. Or would suggest training that I haven’t given any thought to that he thought would be beneficial to me.

You’ve got to push yourself. That’s the way you succeed.

In discussing their training and development provision, several employers also made this point; for example: ’I guess it’s not even really the work, sometimes it’s more of the attitude.…You can teach the job, you can’t really teach… a good, positive working attitude… For me, that’s what we expect more from the apprentices – really good, high energy, positivity rather than just getting really good work done, but then not having the sort of personality to back it up.’ Employers with this view thus emphasised that apprentices’ own attitudes would determine the degree to which their training and development were fruitful, as they also needed to be proactive in order to take advantage of the quality opportunities on offer.

From employers’ perspectives, training and developing apprentices was largely seen to depend on the nature of the industry and the requirements of each apprenticeship qualification. In all cases, however, employers emphasised that a commitment to apprentices’ training and development should be an automatic element as it ultimately benefitted the company in the long run. As one employer made clear, ‘all the training and the time that we put into them is focused on them becoming qualified.


45


You might train one person in this way and they might learn it after that one way, but somebody else might need it taught in a completely different way… it [review process] is beneficial for them because they’re getting everything they need addressed if they’ve got any problems, concerns, worries or any feedback. But yes, I would say it’s actually more for us to learn about them.’

For their part, training providers viewed high quality employers as those who were willing to cooperate with the training provider in terms of enabling assessor visits, apprentices’ day release and other associated aspects. They also saw such employers to be those who offered their apprentices a wide variety of opportunities, on- and off-site, to develop and grow, and who had a culture of recognising and rewarding success. Quality was also perceived among employers who adopted a ‘whole-person’ approach towards developing an apprentice not only in terms of the skills the business would need, but also in terms of transferable/life skills that would help the apprentice in their future. As another training provider stated: ‘part of our conversations in terms of the review process will have headings in terms of functional skills and how it’s been embedded… Personal learning and thinking skills is also part of this. Time-keeping, attendance, communication, how they’re getting on with colleagues, teamwork, how they contribute ideas.’

Conversely, low quality employers were perceived as not adequately supporting apprentices, in terms of their day-to-day work content as well as potential interpersonal issues, i.e., not being interested in really listening to apprentices and their concerns, but engaging with them both negatively and superficially instead. As one training provider expressed it: ‘I think sometimes you get employers who react to behaviour… and don’t dig any deeper. You know, they don’t look [at] what is driving this… we’ve had instances of candidates being treated according to stereotype. You know, typical student, typical teenager… And actually they’re not. They’re just going through some stuff.’

And we discuss with them where we think their strengths are and what role we see them playing in the company when they are qualified.’

Alongside this, employers largely also felt it was important that apprentices could grow their transferable skills, such as leadership, good communication and team working. Not all employers sent their apprentices on external events/networking, although those who did (including exchanges with competitor organisations) saw a lot of value in these helping apprentices to build precisely those softer skills, as well as their confidence and knowledge of their role/industry.

Where necessary, employers would arrange for apprentices to go on college day release, which could sometimes create a clash with work demands and necessitated a good relationship and communication with the training provider. One employer also pointed out that some training providers were not delivering the same quality of academic lecturing support as several years ago, again highlighting the intersection of employers and providers in together creating quality – not just employers on their own. In cases where apprentices did struggle with their academic work, some employers highlighted going ‘the extra mile’ in terms of sitting with them and helping them think through coursework tasks.

Most employers subjected apprentices to the same feedback and performance review processes as other staff; some also had additional reward schemes for apprentices, such as ‘apprentice of the year awards’. Overall, there were few problems identified with these performance management processes, and very rare occasions when apprentices had to be disciplined or let go. Having flexibility and an open mind during these review processes was also seen as important; as one employer made clear, ‘everybody learns differently…


46


Post-apprenticeship development and impactsThe majority of apprentices interviewed had gone on to permanent roles with the same employer following their apprenticeship, were planning to do so, or hoped to continue through to the next apprenticeship level with them. Most asserted that this had been an expectation from the start and that employers had made their progression routes clear. Some commented that they never would have picked their current roles had it not been for the apprenticeship, and commended their employer for giving them plenty of opportunities and well-rounded support to see this new potential for themselves. As one person commented: ‘I think I’ve achieved an idea of where I want to go with my career… it’s given me a foundation of where I wanted to go and it got me into an organisation that’s really good. And I was learning so much… different systems, talking to people and building my confidence as well.’ The image conveyed here is of a forward-thinking employer committed to the apprentice and encouraging her to explore further opportunities.

A few apprentices remained unsure of what their next steps would be, as ongoing posts had not been guaranteed. However, value was still seen in terms of what the apprenticeship could add to their future paths, as one apprentice in this position commented: ‘I can be looking at roles where they’re looking for people that are qualified up to Level 3… it’s going to broaden what I can apply for.’ The apprentice who was already in post with the employer, having previously worked at the company for 40 years, also emphasised that value emerged from it in terms of the ‘confidence’ and ‘more knowledge’ it gave him.

Collectively, these findings indicate the truth of what one employer emphasised:

I think a successful apprenticeship is… like a triangle [that] involves three people. It involves effort from the apprentice, effort from the employer, and effort with the college. You can’t have an employer pulling against a college and a college pulling against an employer. Because the person it’s affecting is the apprentice in the middle. There needs to be equal effort on each person’s behalf. If one chink in the chain breaks down, then it affects everybody.


47


Other impacts included learning more about their own potential as a result of the job and the employer’s belief in and encouragement of them.

This also led to them growing ‘as a person’, as one apprentice conveyed: ‘the big thing I’d say is my confidence. When I started here I was quite shy… I was thrown right into the deep end, given work to do straightaway. I had to meet new people and do presentations. So it’s really helped with confidence… personally outside of work, I’m like more organised and mature… I think I’ve just grown up as a person.’

Often, these impacts exceeded apprentices’ initial expectations of what their apprenticeships would be like; as another interviewee made clear: ‘before starting apprenticeships… you do have those perceptions, will I just be on minimum wage and making coffee, rather than actually when you start and the plan that they had to move you around the business and all the work you’d be getting involved with, it was nothing like that… it was really, really varied and I got to do some great things along the way.’ This theme came up in several interviews and highlights the importance of high quality employer provision in combatting negative stereotypes of apprenticeships.

For employers, the positive impacts of apprenticeships were similar. These included apprentices completing their qualification and having enjoyed their time on the apprenticeship; having a well (and specifically) trained new staff member; the employers’ investment in the apprentice paying off by having them stay on and be a valuable member of the team, contributing to the company’s success; economic benefit to the business by being able to attract/secure more contracts due to greater capacity enabled by apprentices; and giving something back to the community.

Apprentices’ experiences following their roles were more or less in line with employers’ accounts of apprentice retention, which ranged from an estimated 50–90%. This was dependent on various factors such as role viability, budgetary constraints, and apprentices’ own willingness to stay on, among others. Employers also asserted that they tended to have deliberate discussions about this with their apprentices from the start, as also implied by the fact that the majority of surveyed employers said they had progression routes in place as part of the purpose of the apprenticeship for the company. One employer’s words were common to many: ‘as soon as the apprentice goes on to their degree, that’s them staying as long as we can keep them. We don’t want them leaving when we’ve spent all the time training them.’

Employers tended to present a balanced view of how well prepared the apprentices were for the world of work afterwards, in that while they had the theoretical knowledge and grounding in the company, there was still much to learn once ‘the boxes have been ticked’, and they were left alone with customers and projects. An implied marker of quality here, therefore, is being realistic and understanding that apprentices will need more patience and nurturing, especially if having come directly from school.

Overall, apprentices felt they had achieved a substantial amount with their apprenticeships – impacts that were clearly linked with some of the key, high quality traits that apprentices perceived in employers. These included completing their apprenticeship on time and to the required standard not just because of their own effort, but because of the support, flexibility and training provision they received from their employer; being in full time work as a result of being offered the position, and earning (in contrast to graduates of the same age); and learning how to work well in a team.


48


Employers provided similar recommendations, the most frequent among them being that candidates should look for employers who are committed to apprenticeships and do not see them as a cheap labour/less academically able option. Another strong recommendation put forward by employers was to check that the role applied for would be beneficial to the apprentice’s future career path. As one employer asserted: ‘[check] that career pathway because, even if that employer doesn’t offer a particularly competitive rate of pay, if they are offering that good quality pathway towards what you want to become, then take that year or two with that lower salary. Get that qualification, get that experience, and the money will soon come down the line.’

Other employer recommendations included to look for employers offering a good internal development structure for all staff, including apprentices; researching the employer’s organisational mission and ethics; getting a sense of how much they value their staff and, at interview stage, asking how much support they can provide; choosing an employer who will treat apprentices as equal to other members of staff; and, finally, apprentices themselves being prepared to put in their own effort, given that employers also want invested and passionate people.

In their recommendations, training providers focused on the research aspect in terms of apprentices becoming well informed about an employer/vacancy to ensure it is where they want to work, and about the kind of reputation the employer has in terms of offering apprenticeships. They also recommended that apprentices have well-prepared questions for the employer to ask at interview stage in order to get a feel for their culture and what would be expected of them, as well as to ensure the employer is clear about the working conditions and pay offered.

Training providers echoed these positive impacts to an extent. They mainly saw these to be successfully completed apprenticeships, apprentices being retained by the employer, and the employer maintaining an ongoing relationship with the training provider for future apprentice cohorts. These impacts were seen as enabled by employers who were committed to working with both the apprentice and the college in ensuring the apprenticeship went smoothly; who offer good, holistic support to their apprentices; and who have progression routes in place.

In terms of what made their employers particularly good ones to work for, the most common theme across the apprentice interviews was that of being supported, and feeling welcomed and included in the organisation. As the following two people expressed: ‘I think the people has been the biggest thing. Everybody’s friendly, everybody’s welcoming, and that makes a big difference… It just allows me to feel part of the team’, and: ‘feeling like you’re a part of the team rather than just the apprentice.’ This last comment echoes one of the key overarching themes that emerged across all the areas of interest – that of equal courtesy and respect being extended to apprentices as well as other staff.

Indeed, the latter was one of the main recommendations that apprentices gave for future apprentices – i.e., to look for an employer who will treat them as an equal member of staff and value their opinion. Other recommendations included looking for an employer with a history of employing apprentices; one with a good reputation in the industry and/or good ethics, especially where diversity is concerned; one who is committed to their staff growing and with tangible proof of their training provision; an employer who is transparent about the possibility of future employment; one willing to offer the apprentice wage or above; and an employer willing to provide mentors to support the apprentice throughout their time.


49


In the case of smaller employers, competition in the local area from bigger employers who could attract more or better apprentice candidates could be an issue. Some employers also acknowledged that they could provide more external networking opportunities for apprentices, as well as more peer-to-peer communication with other apprentices within their organisation.

It is also worth mentioning that a couple of employers highlighted the potentially detrimental effect that paying into the Levy could have on the general quality of apprenticeships, arguing that this could mean employers take on apprentices to get their money’s worth rather than having a true buy-in to that person, with all the negative consequences associated with that lack of investment, as previously discussed. As one employer argued: ‘there will be plenty of companies now who are just taking them on for the sake of it, just to spend their Levy pot. And that’s the danger with this reform… that (a) it’s going to make recruitment a lot harder for companies that have been doing apprenticeships for a long time, because everybody’s going to be hiring apprentices, and (b), these companies will not necessarily have the drive and motivation to make these apprenticeships a success and it might actually lead to a lower level [of quality].’

In summary, it is evident that the highest quality employers were those offering clear progression routes and concrete opportunities to their apprentices, as well as those able to critically reflect on their practices and change something if it was not working. Given these circumstances, apprentices were seen to thrive in their posts and reap benefits both for themselves and the organisations.

Aspects that apprentices felt could have been improved in their workplaces mostly related to previous apprenticeships in which they did not feel that employers were truly interested in, or tangibly invested in, developing them, but wanted to ‘plug the gaps’ in their workplace and use them as cheap labour. Other critiques included employers who did not offer adequate pastoral support, where mentors/line managers were absent, and where the work was routine and monotonous rather than inspiring and varied.

Finally, a few apprentices mentioned having had problems with their training providers, who were not seen as accessible/available enough, marked work late, or were unsupportive when apprentices were struggling. For example, one person mentioned having had a poor relationship with the training provider at her previous apprenticeship, contrasting this with the current positive one: ‘I find that she’s [current assessor] really supportive. I can approach her if I need some help. Obviously if I’m ahead of things, then she’ll congratulate me. If I say I’m just going to be a couple days late, and I let her know that I’m handing in work… that’s fine, as long as I still do it. With [former employer], I didn’t have a very good relationship with my tutor, my assessor. We didn’t really see each other. It was a case of, where’s your work? Why haven’t you done it? Or, the work isn’t up to scratch, go away and do it again. Whereas [current tutor] will say… improve on this area, here’s some help. Look at these websites, or I’ve given you an example what to do.’

When asked about the main hurdles they had faced when working with apprentices, employers most frequently mentioned the challenges of capacity and sometimes not being able to support the apprentice as much as they wanted to.


50


Survey findings

While lower than those who said they agreed about the usefulness of this application of apprenticeships, this still indicates that developing existing staff is an important part of employers’ engagement with apprenticeships, suggesting that the latter should not be seen as something to be associated with young people alone.

With regard to apprentices’ perceived skills levels, only 33% of employers disagreed that these tend to be low-skilled positions, with 10% somewhat agreeing. 38% of the former group who disagreed with this statement also employed zero apprentices, which could suggest that a significant proportion of these employers either actively required the filling of low-skilled positions or, again, for other reasons and constraints, were unable to employ apprentices. As an extension of this, employers were asked about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement that apprenticeships are for less academic students, as an alternative to A levels and/or university. While 47% of employers in total said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with this, 30% of employers in total agreed, strongly agreed or somewhat agreed, indicating a sizeable proportion of the survey sample tentatively abiding by what may arguably seen as a more stereotypical view of apprenticeships. Interestingly, this particular impression was not always borne out in the recorded hiring practices, as 47% of those who disagreed with this statement employed zero apprentices, while 47% who actually agreed were found to have 2–5 apprentices. The implication here, again, is that the latter may have taken on their apprentices in role levels below that of A levels/university and that, potentially, these apprentices may not be receiving training/support that is in line with higher skills levels and demands.

Perceptions of apprenticeshipsIt is clear in both the research literature and mainstream media that there still exists some ambivalence with regard to how apprenticeships are perceived, among young people and other potential apprentices, their parents, and employers themselves. As previous research by IIP has shown, these perceptions may contribute to some potential candidates actively engaging with apprenticeships or alternatively not seeing them as a worthwhile option. The same may be said of employers – that their perceptions of the value and potential of apprenticeships may dictate the extent to which they decide to include this as part of their own strategy.

To probe this further, our survey asked employers (both those who do and do not employ apprentices) a series of questions about their perceptions of apprenticeships, with some significant findings emerging. To begin with, 26% of employers strongly agreed, and 36% agreed that apprenticeships are a career route designed for young people. Of these, 66% of them also recorded that they employed zero apprentices. This may suggest that this dominant perception may preclude apprentice hiring in those organisations wishing to take on more mature or experienced staff.

When presented with the statement that apprenticeships are a way of providing hands-on practical training to existing staff, ‘agree’ was the most frequent overall response, at 37%. Interestingly, ‘up-skilling existing staff’ was the fourth most common response among employers (at 26%) when they were asked about their motivations for recruiting apprentices (as will shortly be discussed).


51


Probing employers’ ethics further, they were presented with the statement that apprenticeships are a way for organisations to take on cheaper staff. While the majority (67%) said they somewhat disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with this, almost a quarter of those surveyed (23%) said they agreed or somewhat agreed. Considering that, the majority of those who disagreed had zero apprentices while 42% of those who somewhat agreed with this statement were then found to have 2–5 apprentices. This suggests that employing apprentices as cheap labour is still a fairly common practice which, it may be conjectured, happens more among capacity-constrained organisations that cannot afford to take on larger numbers of apprentices at a higher cost.

The vast majority of employers (86%) agreed or strongly agreed that apprenticeships are a good way for people to earn while they learn, and most of those who had apprentices stood by this in practice, as 77% said they pay their apprentices above the minimum apprentice wage. Of those who agreed, 47% had zero apprentices employed, again indicating a disconnect between an acknowledged benefit of apprenticeships and the reality of being able to offer these.


52


60% 58%

27% 26%

19%16% 15%

11% 9% 9% 7% 5% 3% 2% 1%

Dev

elop

ing

tale

nt a

nd

futu

re b

usin

ess

lead

ers

Fulf

illin

g th

e or

gani

sati

on’s

so

cial

mis

sion

Prov

idin

g lo

cal y

oung

peo

ple

wit

h be

tter

car

eer o

ppor

tuni

ties

Up

-ski

lling

exi

stin

g st

aff

Hel

ping

peo

ple

in th

e lo

cal c

omm

unit

y

Gov

ernm

ent i

ncen

tive

s (e

.g. f

undi

ng fo

r tra

inin

g)

Recr

uiti

ng s

peci

alis

t la

bour

Impr

ovin

g br

and

awar

enes

s an

d re

puta

tion

Oth

er

Reco

upin

g so

me

of o

ur

App

rent

ices

hip

Levy

cos

ts

Redu

cing

re

crui

tmen

t cos

ts

Incr

ease

d re

turn

on

inve

stm

ent

Empl

oyin

g ch

eap

staf

f

Alig

ning

wit

h in

dust

ry n

orm

s

I don

’t kn

ow

As highlighted in both the literature review and in-depth interviews of this study, employers’ motivations for taking on apprentices can have significant implications for their subsequent investment in apprentices. The surveyed employers were thus asked what motivated them to take on apprentices. The most frequently mentioned reasons were: developing talent and future business leaders (60%); providing local young people with better career opportunities (58%); and fulfilling their organisation’s social mission (27%) (see Chart 1).

Only 9% mentioned the Levy as a motivation for recruiting apprentices, reinforcing some of the previously discussed discrepancies between the obligation to pay it and its real effects on the ground. This also reflects on some employers’ concerns highlighted during the interviews; namely, that the Levy would push employers to employ apprentices in order to recoup their costs, or because they felt they had to – the survey findings suggest that this may not be a major factor.

Chart 1. Employers’ responses to: what motivates your organisation to recruit apprentices?

Investment in and motivations for recruiting apprentices

Note: Based on 91 responses. Respondents were asked to select their top three answers.


53


apprentices each year, 55% of them have recruited for over 10 years and 18% of them have recruited for 6–10 years, with all others (i.e., less than six years) falling below 9%. This shows a clear increase in the number of apprentices employed alongside the increase in the number of years for which they have recruited them, reinforced by the further finding that of all the respondents who have only recruited apprentices for 0–1 years, 55% of them have only one apprentice. This indicates that employers who have a well-established tradition of offering apprenticeships not only attract larger cohorts, but can assimilate them into their organisation in terms of support and development (see below for a further discussion on this). Thus having apprenticeships embedded as part of an organisation’s hiring, growth or business development strategy, by virtue of their longstanding presence, can be seen as a key motivation when attracting apprentices.

As an additional way of gauging employers’ buy-in to apprenticeships, they were asked a two-part question about the new Apprenticeship Levy – firstly, if their organisation was paying into it and, secondly, if this would encourage them to recruit more apprentices. Overall, 46% of respondents replied that they were paying into the Levy, of whom the majority were located in the North West, North East and South East of the UK, with organisations in Wales most likely to say they were not paying the Levy (67% of these). 46% also agreed that this payment would indeed encourage them to hire more apprentices, of whom the highest proportion were located in the South East, while, interestingly, over half of employers based in the North East stated that the Levy would not encourage this despite being one of the regions that most frequently pay into it in this survey. This suggests that paying into the Levy may not necessarily be a sign of real, on-the-ground investment in apprentices. Organisation size may also be a factor here, as 83% of surveyed employers who had over 1000 employees stated that the Levy would encourage them to take on more apprentices, while only 33% of those with 250–999 employees and only 39% of those with 50–249 employees said the same.

Within the other motivations, some key patterns emerged. For example, and perhaps unsurprisingly, charities were most likely to be motivated by the need to fulfil their social mission, as 67% of these organisations cited this as a reason for recruiting apprentices, compared with only 14% of private sector respondents and 22% of public sector respondents.

Other, less frequently mentioned motivations included government incentives, which public sector (11%) and charity organisations (11%) were less likely to be motivated by than private organisations (22%); and reducing recruitment costs, which no public sector and charity respondents highlighted as a motivation, while 10% of private sector respondents did. While a minority of respondents said they recruited apprentices in order to have cheap labour (9%), those in Northern Ireland (at 67%) saw this as a bigger motivation than in other regions.

Employers who do not hire apprentices were also asked about their reasons for not doing so. The key reasons cited were a lack of staff capacity to mentor and support an apprentice (26%), and the perception that their industry/sector was not suited to apprenticeships (22%). The open responses provided further reasons here, such as not being able to afford an apprentice post (two out of the 11 employers who provided an open response said this) and, most often, being in the process of setting up their apprenticeship scheme, mentioned by five out of the 11; for example: ‘we are in the process of setting up appropriate opportunities for apprentices and will be recruiting this year.’

The length of time that employers have spent recruiting apprentices was seen to be a significant factor impacting on the size of their yearly apprentice cohort. This could also provide some further insights into the link between motivation and the quality of experience offered, given that those who had a longer tradition of hiring apprentices were more accustomed to the process and arguably to understanding their responsibility as employers, potentially leading to a more mature offer. Of all the respondents who said they recruit 21–50


54


Face-to-face outreach in areas where potential

apprentices are likely to be

55% Through our training provider or college

30% Speaking in schools

and colleges

30% Attending

careers fairs

30% Social media

26% Word of mouth

24% National

Apprenticeship Service website 18%

17%

11%

9%

Other careers websites

Other

1% I don’t know

Existing staff becoming apprentices

As shown in Chart 2, the most commonly cited recruitment methods were: through a training provider (55%), by employers speaking in schools and colleges (30%), attending careers fairs (30%), via social media (30%), and via word of mouth (26%). Interestingly, only 24% of employers said they used the National Apprenticeship Service website. Other methods mentioned in the open responses included via specific job websites and through traditional advertising.

Recruitment methods and challengesEmployers’ recruitment methods and adherence to equality and diversity policies have been highlighted as vital in apprentice recruitment, in order that the employer can attract the right candidate for them, and so that potential apprentices are given fair and equal access to diverse employers. For this reason, employers were asked about their most common apprentice recruitment methods and any challenges they may face at this stage.


Chart 2. Employers’ responses to: what are the main recruitment advertising methods you use to attract apprentices?


55


Midlands (at 33%) than in other regions (where this was cited as 11% or less). This may, again, point to differential employment needs by region, where some areas would focus more on internal staff development rather than expanding their existing workforce.

When asked about their biggest hurdles to recruiting apprentices, a range of responses were highlighted (see Chart 3), of which the most common were: not being able to attract quality applicants (45%), applicants not having the right employability skills (44%), competition from other employers (29%), and applicants not having the right level of English and maths (24%). While a minority of those surveyed provided ‘other’ or open responses, the theme of not attracting the right type of applicant also emerged here; for example, one respondent described their biggest hurdle as being: ‘[finding] applicants sharing the right values and [who] have a suitable attitude that fits the culture of the business.’

Within the most common methods, while using training providers was largely evenly spread across employers, an industry-specific pattern emerged with regard to speaking in schools and colleges. All of the surveyed employers in public administration services said they used this method, while 67% in transportation and storage said the same, as did 50% of employers working in construction, financial insurance and IT. The industries least likely to use this method were human health and social work (13%) and manufacturing (12%).

Social media was used much more in Northern Ireland (100%) and Scotland (50%), and much less in London (17%) and the South East (15%), a difference that may be due to the more concentrated labour markets in the latter areas which mean that potential apprentices may already be informed about opportunities via a diversity of channels. With regard to the less common recruitment channels, such as existing staff becoming apprentices (9%), this was found to be more likely in the

Chart 3. Employers’ responses to: what are your biggest hurdles when recruiting apprentices?

Hurdle to recruiting apprentices Overall response rate (% of respondents)

Not being able to attract quality applicants 45

Applicants not having the right employability skills 44

Competition from other employers for the best apprentices 29

Applicants not having the right level of English and/or maths 24

Applicants not having the right subject related qualifications 17

Applicants being discouraged by their parents to do an apprenticeship 14

Not being able to attract apprentices from a diverse range of ethnicities 13

Not being able to recruit enough female apprentices 13

Other 11

Applicants dropping out of the application process to go to university 10

I don’t know 6

Not being able to recruit enough male apprentices 4

Not being able to attract apprentices from a diverse range of socio-economic backgrounds 2



56


A hurdle that can be seen as external to apprentices themselves was that of competition from other employers for the best apprentice. This emerged as a greater hurdle in South West England, where 67% of surveyed employers highlighted it, than in any other region. Another challenge in this category was that of potential apprentices being discouraged to apply by their parents (14% overall), which was found to be a particular hurdle in the North West region, by 44% of respondents there. A minority of employers (10%) also mentioned applicants dropping out of the application process to go to university, which was much more of an issue in London (where 36% said yes to this), compared to other regions (where 13% or below gave this response).

The main employer-related challenges were those that emerged with regard to equality and diversity practices. Of the employers, 13% said that they were not able to attract enough female apprentices, particularly in the transportation and storage, electricity, gas and steam, and real estate industries, where 50%, 33% and 29% of employers stated this, respectively. 13% of employers overall also said that they were not able to engage candidates from a diverse range of ethnicities, with public sector organisations particularly struggling with this (47% gave this response), compared with only 2% of private sector organisations and 6% of charities. While it cannot be assumed from this that these employers have poor quality recruitment practices (given the regional and industry variations in being able to attract and access certain types of people), it is worth noting that, overall, 95% of employers stated that they have an equality and diversity policy in place for recruitment practices. This would suggest that while active measures are taken to engage a diversity of people, they do not always work in practice and may serve to compromise the quality of employers’ engagement with potential apprentices.

Within these, employers in IT industries were most likely to struggle with not being able to attract quality candidates (86%), while a lack of employability skills was most often found among charities (59%) and public sector organisations (53%); private sector employers were less likely to find the latter to be a hurdle (with 37% giving this response). Not having the right level of English and maths was most often cited by employers in Northern Ireland (of whom 100% gave this response), and by half of all respondents in the Midlands, and this was most often a challenge for the education and public administration industries, where 75% and 50% of employers cited this, respectively. These hurdles are significant as they represent quality challenges before the apprenticeship has even started – challenges which relate more to the candidates themselves and, perhaps, the recruitment process/avenues than the quality the employer can offer. However, this does also indicate that the employers experiencing these challenges could perhaps do more proactive and outreach work to find the candidates they truly need and want, as research suggests that the more hands-on employers are about this, the more likely they are to source the right people. This finding could also imply that more needs to be done with schools, training providers and potential future apprentices to make sure that potential candidates are more prepared or more employable, with a good employer working with schools and colleges to make this happen by making it clear from the start exactly what they are looking for in an apprentice. For example, as seen in the in-depth interviews, employers valued working with training providers who put apprentices through a pre-work ‘boot camp’ to ensure their soft skills were of the required level, while other training providers ensured apprentices had the correct level of English and maths to ensure they would match well with the employers interested in hiring them.


57


More specifically, the survey also revealed that for those who affirmed having an equality and diversity policy, 51% of their recruitment was done via training providers, 31% by attending careers fairs, 28% through speaking in schools and colleges, 28% via social media, and 25% by word of mouth. Collectively, the findings in this section present some indicators not only with regard to effectiveness and engagement, but also specifically with regard to fair recruitment practices, as direct contact with potential students and the training provider acting as a key filter are seen to be most aligned with having equality and diversity practices embedded in apprentice recruitment. The extended reach of social media – across users from a diversity of backgrounds – could also be a reason for its effectiveness.


58


Apprentice support and developmentAs two key markers of employer quality consistently highlighted in the relevant literature, and certainly borne out by the in-depth interviews also conducted as part of this research, survey respondents were asked about the ways in which they support and/or develop their apprentices. These included: the organisation assigning apprentices a line manager for daily work related support (75%), regular feedback sessions

with the apprentice (71%), setting clear objectives throughout an apprenticeship (65%), having a dedicated internal mentor per apprentice (55%), having a clear balance of work and learning time on the job (55%), a line manager for pastoral support (52%), and opportunities to provide feedback to management in confidence (47%) (see Chart 4).

Chart 4. Employers’ responses to: in which of the following ways do you support and/or develop your apprentices?

Support and development provision Overall response rate (% of respondents)

A line manager for daily work related support 75

Regular feedback sessions with the apprentice 71

Clear objectives set throughout their apprenticeship 65

A dedicated mentor from within your organisation for each apprentice 55

Clear balance of work and learning time on the job 55

A line manager for your apprentices’ pastoral support 52

Opportunities to provide feedback to management in confidence 47

Option to attend more than the minimum off-site training 44

Clear internal promotion and progression routes 42

The flexibility to adapt apprentices’ role if it’s not working for them 40

Social and networking opportunities across the organisation 39

Opportunities for the apprentice to attend events, conferences, etc. 38

Basic skills training (e.g. maths and English where needed) 36

No specific support or development opportunities in place for apprentices 31

Team building opportunities specific to apprentices 25

I don’t know 1

Other 0

Note: Based on 85 responses. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.


59


Other patterns that emerged with regard to apprentices’ support and development included opportunities for the apprentices to interact and collaborate with both their peers and internal/external stakeholders. The first of these was the opportunity to attend events, conferences and other networking spaces, cited by 38% of employers overall and particularly among organisations in Scotland (55%) and the Midlands (75%), compared to only 25% of those in the North East and 17% in the South East. In terms of internal social and networking opportunities, organisations in the South West (67%) and Midlands were more likely to have these for apprentices than others. Team building opportunities specifically for apprentices, mentioned by 25% of employers overall, were more likely to occur in the public sector (as mentioned by 47% of employers there), than the private sector (17%) and charities (16%). Combined, these support aspects form an important complement to the more formal managerial and feedback support that was mentioned by most employers; the fact that these other supporting aspects were less frequently cited suggests that employers who provide these may be going the ‘extra mile’ to ensure their apprentices have the optimum opportunities for development in terms of both their professional and interpersonal skills.

The notion of going the extra mile was also evident among the 77% of employers who said they pay their apprentices above the minimum wage, as this shows a commitment to their apprentices – and a valuing of them – exceeding that of legal requirements.


60


Such clarity and internal opportunity was more likely in smaller companies of 2–49 employees, of whom 67% said they offered this in comparison to less than 44% for all other sizes. This trend may indicate that smaller employers may place greater investment into their apprentice courtesy of needing them to build their staff capacity and plan for the future, which larger organisations may not need to the same extent. Industry-wise, a majority of employers in the professional, scientific and technical sector (at 70%) were more likely to offer internal progression and promotion routes as a pathway of apprentice development as opposed to those in the other industries identified, for whom it was 50% or less.

A significant difference also emerged by organisation type, as 83% and 81% of public and private sector employers, respectively, said they had these routes, compared with only 50% of charities/social enterprises. Organisation size also made a difference, as the following chart shows:

Apprentice retention and progressionThis is a key aspect widely seen both, in the literature and in interviewees’ experiences in the current research, to be a clear marker of employer quality where apprenticeships are concerned. For this reason, the surveyed employers were asked the following question: are there clear progression routes outlined for all apprentices within your organisation? Overall, 74% of employers affirmed that they offer clear progression routes outlined for all apprentices in their organisation, with clear trends emerging according to region and industry. These were more likely to be cited by employers in the following regions: Wales, South West, and North East England (all at 83%) and in the Midlands (88%). While still at high rates of mention, progression routes were less likely in Scotland and London (both at 64%), and in South East England and Northern Ireland (67%). Interestingly, having clear internal promotion and progression routes for apprentices was also a commonly cited aspect in the remit of providing apprentices with support and development, with 42% of employers stating this.

Chart 5. Availability of progression routes for apprentices by employer size


11%

89%

10%

20%

70%

31%

69%

30%

70%

Organisation Size: 2 – 49



Organisation Size: 1000+

Progression routes present for apprentices (%)

No progression routes for apprentices (%)

Don’t know (%)


61


Chart 6. Approximate percentage of apprentices who stay on with the organisation

Note: Based on 87 responses.

25–49%

50–74%

75–100% Overall response rate (% of respondents)

I don’t know

0–24%

45%

24%

13%

11%

7%

Retention rate

Again, it is interesting to note that the smallest organisations – which might be expected to have less capacity/budget for taking on further permanent staff – were most likely to have progression routes secured for their apprentices, almost 20% more than the largest employers. On the other hand, the argument could be made that this occurs precisely because these organisations are small and, therefore, are more in need of building up their workforce than some of the larger ones may be.

This finding was compounded by employers’ statements of approximate retention rates after apprentices had finished their apprenticeships. As Chart 6 shows, the most frequent responses were in the highest retention band (45%), with the lowest number of respondents saying they kept between none and 24% of apprentices (7%).


62


Employers’ commitment to quality

As a way of gauging the extent to which employers would buy into a quality framework for apprenticeships, survey respondents were asked about their willingness to be subject to an apprenticeship accreditation mark. In total, 47% of employers said they would consider this, while almost a third (30%) were unsure; 16% asserted that they did not want this. It is interesting to note that 66% of those who expressed that they would consider being accredited were private sector employers, showing a keen interest in this sector to prove their quality. With regard to industry, almost half of all employers who said they would be interested in the accreditation were from three categories: construction (14%), human health and social work (16%), and professional, scientific and technical industries (17%).

Of those who affirmed this interest, 30% recorded having 2–5 employees, suggesting an interest among potentially smaller employers in proving their quality, but also some conflict with another finding that this is the group most likely to agree that apprentices can be seen as a source of cheap labour, which would clearly go against a quality mark. The finding relating to this particular employer size can be contrasted with the result that, among the 16% who said no to being interested in becoming accredited, 48% of them have 50–249 employees. This suggests that medium sized employers may be less in need of a public stamp of quality. Another significant finding related to the 16% who were not interested in an accreditation was that, sector-wise, 19% are in education. This finding may be a result of education based organisations already being subject to regulatory processes and public accounts of their practices (such as Ofsted).

The implications of these findings point to the reality that a quality framework would not be applicable as a catch-all for all employers but should, rather, be made flexible and carefully contextualised to the different identities and needs of employers themselves.

Of those who stated they had clear progression routes for apprentices in place, 56.2% of employers stated that they keep on between 75% and 100% of their apprentices, followed by 20% saying they keep on 25–49%, and a minority (5%) saying they retain between one and 24%, indicating that employers’ clarity of outlining these routes does have a bearing on the final outcome for the apprentice, and could thus be seen as a marker of quality.

Regionally, it was interesting to note that employers in the South West were 100% consistent in saying they kept on 75–100% of apprentices, while none of those from Northern Ireland recorded this retention rate. London employers presented the most uniform split, as 27% said they retained 25–49%, 50–74% and 75–100% each. Employers in North West England were most likely to say they retained 0–24% of apprentices.

In terms of organisation type, those in the private sector were most likely to say they retained 75–100% of apprentices, at 53%, which was also the most often reported retention band for charities/social enterprises (at 39%), although the latter group were also most likely to state they retained between none and 24% of apprentices (at 11%).


63


From the perspectives of apprentices, employers and training providers combined in our research, the following are what we hypothesise to be the major aspects of a high quality apprentice employer, and what we will be testing in the next stage of our work.

Hypotheses

High quality employers have an ongoing commitment to apprentices’ training and development. This is evident through the existence of demonstrable, good training and development programmes that the employer has in place for all staff, with apprentices being able to tap into those programmes and benefit from them, as well as receive any tailored training provision they need. This quality is also evident from the initial design of each apprenticeship that takes into account the particular needs of the subject/level, and is responsive to potential adaptation as the apprentice progresses. Finally, this commitment is apparent among employers who encourage apprentices to build their soft and transferable skills, and explore and understand their own potential by allowing them to rotate around different teams/departments/projects.

High quality employers have a diverse approach towards apprenticeships, from recruitment through to payment policies. This can be seen among employers who have a track record and good reputation for working with apprentices and retaining them. More specifically, this reputation may stem from being particularly committed to employing people from the local community and/or making another social impact. Good ethics here start at recruitment stage, through practices actively respecting and seeking equality and diversity in their apprentice profiles. These employers also pay above the apprentice minimum wage.

High quality employers provide consistent and dedicated support for apprentices. Employers who can provide dedicated technical and pastoral support through line management and/or a mentor to apprentices have high quality outcomes. These outcomes are also more likely among employers who foster a positive working culture where staff feel valued, and where there is a strong ethic of treating apprentices like an equal member of the team.

High quality employers have clear progression routes in place for their apprentices at the start, and are transparent about them. This transparency includes ensuring the apprentice understands whether or not there is a guarantee of an ongoing role at the end of their apprenticeship (subject to their own efforts and qualification achievement). Employers who strive to create ongoing roles for apprentices or have these built in from the start, and show high apprentice retention rates, can be considered high quality. These include employers who can offer apprentices a good, well-rounded experience, including external networking opportunities that add value to apprentices’ role development and future career paths.


64


High quality employers have a good and/or well-established working relationship with their training provider, where constructive communication and troubleshooting can take place throughout the apprenticeship. These are employers who have a good understanding of the purpose of the apprenticeship – both for themselves and the apprentice – and are also clear about their responsibilities within the process. As part of these responsibilities, good quality employers take time to understand apprenticeship requirements and carefully consider what their role as employer entails, committing to this with their training provider from the start.

High quality employers are strongly motivated to take on apprentices for the benefit of both company and apprentice growth. These employers see apprentices as a key part of their recruitment and business growth strategies, and count apprentices as an important part of their future succession planning. They also have an ethos of wanting their people to develop and grow, including apprentices.


65


Conclusions

In terms of the design of each individual apprenticeship programme, quality here was seen to lie in employers’ commitment to providing apprentices with fair terms of employment (notably including offering above the apprenticeship minimum wage), and meaningful work that is relevant to the subject and level of their apprenticeship. Here, there emerged the importance of taking each apprenticeship in context and not making assumptions about the nature of ‘meaningful’ work beyond the scope of that particular industry and subject/level. Rather, common assumptions that could be made were seen to be those surrounding the degree of variety, stimulation and challenge/learning that apprentices experience when undertaking this work, regardless of the concrete content. A high and consistent presence of all these aspects typically signified a higher quality apprenticeship. The next step will be to explore and test how employers can apply these markers of quality consistently throughout an apprenticeship to ensure that quality is being maintained, especially bearing in mind the associated finding around the importance of adaptability over time to different apprentices’ needs, struggles and aspirations that also emerged through the research.

An employers’ working culture, and the nature of the managerial and pastoral support provided to apprentices, were underlined as crucial. The presence or absence of such support, and a culture that valued and rewarded staff, were seen to make the difference between a poor quality apprenticeship and one in which apprentices thrived and came to have an ongoing commitment to the employer. A significant theme around equality also emerged, in that both apprentices and employers underlined the benefits of apprentices being perceived and treated the same as other members of staff.

This research has engaged with several key dimensions of employer quality that can have an impact on apprentices’ experiences of apprenticeships, and on training providers and employers themselves. Specifically, our study has found that quality is not only to be found in the final outcome of an apprenticeship, but that it is something built in at every stage and encompassing every aspect of an employer’s offer – from recruitment, through to apprenticeship design, working culture, support and training provision, and availability of progression routes.

The combined aspects of this project revealed key points of learning in each of these key areas, and yielded some specific areas for further exploration. To begin with, the recruitment stage was found to be not only crucial in engaging the right applicants for employers, but also in ensuring that employers reached out to a diverse body of candidates, not just the ‘usual suspects’ in terms of having a particular ‘type’ of apprentice. As the survey highlighted, 95% of employers stated that they have an equality and diversity policy in place for recruitment practices. Despite this, however, the survey also revealed that some of the greatest recruitment hurdles employers experience are attracting enough candidates from certain groups, such as females and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. This would suggest that while active measures are taken to engage a diversity of people, they do not always work in practice; this gap between intention and practice may end up compromising the quality of employers’ engagement with potential apprentices. Further work is needed on this to understand how quality in company policy can be translated into recruitment practice and concrete recruitment outcomes.


66


The sample of employers at the in-depth interview stage made this difficult to explore given their consistent commitment to apprentices and emphasis on the best quality provision they could offer, as they construed this. Including employers of lower commitment to apprentices (such as those who once hired them but no longer do so) in the survey, or those who had experienced significant challenges with apprentices, would have helped to fill this gap, and may be seen as a point for further research.

Finally, in line with the broader aims of this research to define and understand how employer quality in apprenticeships can be measured, survey respondents’ attitudes towards the opportunity of receiving an apprenticeship quality mark varied. This warrants further research to understand what some employers’ concerns in this area might be, and how best such a framework could be applied in order that it embraces the diverse types of employers. For example, taking into account the hypotheses around quality yielded by the current research, such a framework could contain within it several categories of quality linked with size and sector. This would hopefully enable apprenticeship candidates (and associated stakeholders such as schools, training providers and employment agencies) to be able to gain a refined view into which employers would be most appropriate for them in light of the future path they want to pursue.

These findings are poignant in light of the survey result that almost a third of employers said they had ‘no specific support or development opportunities in place for apprentices’. Clearly, this is a major gap, the reasons for which (and ways of addressing them) can be probed in further research.

In terms of training and development, while no major barriers to providing adequate provision emerged in employers’ or in apprentices’ experiences, one external challenge did emerge – that of potential gaps in training providers’ roles in apprenticeships or, more specifically, the intersection of what they and employers, respectively, offer. This challenge emerged in some apprentices’ accounts of being unsatisfied with the training and development aspects overseen by the provider. While their employers typically did what they could to assist, ultimately they could not resolve this, in some cases affecting apprentices’ experiences. In this sense, employer quality cannot be seen in isolation from providers’ offer. Further research could thus be done into understanding how employers can mitigate the effects of potential training provider shortcomings so as not to compromise the overall quality of the apprenticeship.

Engaging with the idea of overall quality, it became clear throughout this study that there is scope for hearing more from employers about the aspect that much of the literature is silent about – failed apprenticeships from their perspectives: that is why and how they think quality was compromised, how they remedied the situation, or what they would do to remedy it in future opportunities.


67


Key recommendations and next steps

1 Test the hypotheses developed from this research with a wider sample of key stakeholders.

2 Explore further how these hypotheses can be used to design and develop a quality framework for apprentice employers in order to help future apprentices make more informed choices when applying for potential roles.

3 Further research into all areas specified in this report including, but not limited to, the following:

A Understanding how recruitment policies can be used to ensure a diverse and ethical approach to apprentice recruitment.

B Explore further the impact of a severe lack of quality from the apprentice’s point of view.

4 Explore how employers can apply these markers of quality consistently throughout their apprenticeship provision to ensure quality is maintained and apprentices maximise the impact of this.


68


Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our warmest thanks to the current and former apprentices, employers and training providers who agreed to participate in our research, without whose generous time this project would not have been possible.


69


References

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Skills Funding Agency (2014) Skills Funding Statement 2013–2016. London: Crown Copyright.

Department for Education (2017) Apprenticeship funding: how it will work. Gov.UK [Online] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Dolphin, T. and Lanning, T. (2011) The way forward. In Dolphin, T., & Lanning, T. (eds.) Rethinking Apprenticeships, pp. 120–132. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

European Commission (2013) The effectiveness and costs-benefits of apprenticeships: Results of the quantitative analysis. European Union.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2008) Towards Expansive Apprenticeships: A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: TLRP, Institute of Education.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2011) The content of apprenticeships. In: Dolphin, T. and Lanning, T. (eds.) Rethinking Apprenticeships, pp. 29–39. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2013) Contemporary Apprenticeship: International Perspectives on an Evolving Model of Learning. London: Routledge.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2013) Gender Segregation, Apprenticeship, and the Raising of the Participation Age in England: are Young Women at a Disadvantage? Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies. [Online.] Available from: https://www.researchonline.org.uk/sds/search/download.do;jsession id=097DC3773D3522B6F8C1B3119B745397?ref=B35164 [Accessed 3rd July 2017]

Beck, V., Fuller, A., Unwin, L. (2006) ‘Safety in stereotypes? The impact of gender and ‘race’ on young people’s perceptions of their post-compulsory education and labour market opportunities’, British Educational Research Journal, 32(5), pp. 667–686.

Billett, S. (2004) ‘Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), pp. 312, 324.

Brophy, M., McNeil, B., Shandro, A. (2009) Thinking about apprenticeships: perceptions and expectations of employers, parents and young people. The Young Foundation. [Online.] Available from: http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Thinking-about-apprenticeships-July-2009.pdf [Accessed 7th March, 2017].

Cambridge Policy Consultants (2006) Evaluation of Modern Apprenticeships and Skillseekers, Final Report. Cambridge: CPC.

CIPD (2014) Apprenticeships that work – a guide for employers. CIPD. [Online.] Available from: https://www2.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/apprenticeships-work.aspx [Accessed 7th March, 2017].

City & Guilds Group (2015) Making Apprenticeships Work. London: City & Guilds.

City & Guilds (2014) Remaking Apprenticeships: powerful learning for work and life. London: The City & Guilds Alliance.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015) Consultation on preventing misuse of the term ‘apprenticeships’ in relation to unauthorised training. London: Crown Copyright.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015) The Future of Apprenticeships in England: Guidance for Trailblazers – from standards to starts. London: Crown Copyright.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work



http://bit.ly/2tHkSmd



https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Thinking-about-apprenticeships-July-2009.pdf



https://www2.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/apprenticeships-work.aspx

https://www2.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/apprenticeships-work.aspx

70


Lanning, T. (2012) ‘The real story behind the rise in apprenticeships under the coalition’, The Guardian, 11th October 2012. [Online.] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/rise-in-apprenticeships-under-coalition [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Mieschbuehler, R., Hooley, T. and Neary, S. (2015) Employers’ Experience of Higher Apprenticeships: Benefits and Barriers. Derby and Melton Mowbray: International Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby and Pera Training.

Miller, L. (2005) ‘Addressing gender segregation in apprenticeships in England’, Education and Training, 47(4/5), pp.283–297.

Minimum Wage (2017) National Minimum Wage 2017. Minimum Wage. [Online.] Available from: http://www.minimum-wage.co.uk/ [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Ofsted (2012) Additional guidance on inspecting employer providers from September 2012. London: Crown Copyright.

Ofsted (2012) Apprenticeships for young people: A good practice report. London: Crown Copyright.

Ofsted (2012) Ensuring quality in apprenticeships: A survey of contracted provision. London: Crown Copyright.

Ofsted (2012) Further Education and Skills Data Dashboard guidance. London: Crown Copyright.

Ofsted (2014) Carefully designed vocational programme: University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. Ofsted. [Online.] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/392209/Southampton_20Uni_20Hosp_20-_20Good_20Practice_20Example.pdf [Accessed 7th March, 2017].

Garner, R. (2011) ‘Employers want apprentices, not graduates’, The Independent, 7th February, 2011. [Online.] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/employers-want-apprentices-not-graduates-2206347.html [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Hasluck, C., Hogarth, T., Baldauf, B., Briscoe, G. (2008) The Net Benefit to Employer Investment in Apprenticeship Training. University of Warwick: Institute for Employment Research.

Heinz, W. R. (2010) Vocational Identity and Flexible Work: A Contradicting or Constructive Relation? In F. Rauner (ed.) Innovative Apprenticeships: Promoting Successful School-to-work Transitions. LIT Verlag Munster.

Hogarth T., Gambin L., Winterbotham M,. Baldauf B., Briscoe G., Gunstone B., Hasluck C., Koerbitz C., Taylor, C. (2012) Employer Investment in Apprenticeships and Workplace Learning: The Fifth Net Benefits of Training to Employers Study. Research paper 67, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. London: Crown Copyright.

IBM Apprentice (2017) ‘2016 Review – Will Spiers’, IBM UK Apprentice Blog. [Online.] Available from: https://ibmapprentice.wordpress.com/ [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Investors In People (2017) Investors in Apprentices: 2017 perception poll. London: Investors In People.

Kerr, S. (2014) ‘Love it or hate it – The Apprentice and apprenticeship diversity’, Business in the Community. [Online.] Available from: http://race.bitc.org.uk/news-opinion/opinion/love-it-or-hate-it-%E2%80%93-apprentice-and-apprenticeship-diversity [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Kirby, P. (2015) Levels of success: The potential of UK apprenticeships. The Sutton Trust.


https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/rise-in-apprenticeships-under-coalition

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/rise-in-apprenticeships-under-coalition

http://www.minimum-wage.co.uk/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620730/Southampton_20Uni_20Hosp_20-_20Good_20Practice_20Example.pdf




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/employers-want-apprentices-not-graduates-2206347.html



https://ibmapprentice.wordpress.com/

http://race.bitc.org.uk/news-opinion/opinion/love-it-or-hate-it-%E2%80%93-apprentice-and-apprenticeship-diversity



71


Technical Apprenticeship Consortium (2013) Apprentice recruitment: Accessing untapped talent. A good practice model for employers and professional institutions. London: TAC.

What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (2015) Evidence Review 8: Apprenticeships. London: What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth.

Wolf, A. (2015) Fixing a Broken Training System: The case for an apprenticeship levy. London: Social Market Foundation.

Ofsted (2015) Engaging small and medium enterprises in work experience and apprenticeships in London. London: Crown Copyright.

Ofsted (2015) Apprenticeships: developing skills for future prosperity. London: Crown Copyright.

Oultram, T. (2014) Youth employment, masculinity and policy. in Hamilton, L., Mitchell, L. and Mangan, A. (eds.) Contemporary issues in management, pp. 72–89. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Porter, N. and Simons, J. (2015) Higher, Further, Faster, More: Improving higher level professional and technical education. London: Policy Exchange.

PWC (2012) Closing the gap: How employers scan change the way young people see Apprenticeships. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP. [Online.] Available from: http://www.educationandemployers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/closing_the_gap__how_employers_can_change_the_way_young_people_see_apprenticeships_.pdf [Accessed 7th March, 2017].

Scott, J. (2016) ‘Becoming an apprentice at Cisco’, Cisco UK & Ireland Blog. [Online.] Available from: http://gblogs.cisco.com/uki/becoming-an-apprentice-at-cisco/ [Accessed 6th March, 2017].

Skills Funding Agency (2014) Qualification Success Rates: Rationale for the method to be used from 2013 to 2014. London: Crown Copyright.

Smith, E. (2002) ‘Theory and practice: the contribution of off-the-job training to the development of apprentices and trainees’, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54(3), pp. 431–456.

Taylor, A. and Watt-Malcolm, B. (2007) ‘Expansive learning through high school apprenticeship: opportunities and limits’. Journal of Education and Work, 20(1), pp. 27–44.


http://www.educationandemployers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/closing_the_gap__how_employers_can_change_the_way_young_people_see_apprenticeships_.pdf




http://gblogs.cisco.com/uki/becoming-an-apprentice-at-cisco/

http://gblogs.cisco.com/uki/becoming-an-apprentice-at-cisco/


2017

Get in touch

[email protected]

@IIP

www.investorsinpeople.com

0300 303 3033

The Investors in People brand, trademarks and assets are owned by Investors in People Community Interest Company, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London. SW1W 9SP. Registered in England and Wales No: 104203611. ©2017 The Investors in People name, mark and logo are protected by copyright and international trademark law. For more information or to report a possible infringement please contact [email protected]. No part of this publication should be reproduced, sold or copied without the permission of the copyright owner.


mailto:info%40investorsinpeople.com?subject=

http://www.twitter.com/IIP


mailto:info%40investorsinpeople.co.uk?subject=

Exploring the characteristics of a quality apprentice … the... · Exploring the characteristics...

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the characteristics of a quality apprentice … the... · Exploring the characteristics...