2. Making the Scottish apprenticeship system more responsive
This chapter explores the key challenges and policy responses involved in making the apprenticeship system in Scotland (United Kingdom) more responsive to labour market needs. It focuses on the role of employers in the apprenticeship system and identifies measures to strengthen employer engagement in Scotland. The chapter also examines the need to refine the minimum requirements for apprenticeship programmes.
The importance of responsiveness in the apprenticeship system
Apprenticeships need to be aligned with evolving labour market needs to ensure that they remain relevant to both employers and apprentices in a changing world of work. It is crucial that the design and development of apprenticeship systems make use of up-to-date information on skill needs, based on a range of data sources and stakeholder inputs. Moreover, strong engagement with social partners, i.e. representatives of employers and workers - usually employer organisations and trade unions, can contribute to ensuring that apprenticeship programmes are relevant and up to date.
A responsive apprenticeship system is one where the scale, scope and direction of apprenticeship provision are regularly calibrated against labour market requirements. More concretely, it means that the range of apprenticeship provision, across sectors, regions, programmes and age groups, is strongly determined by employer demand. A responsive apprenticeship system also seeks to balance long-term and short-term needs. That is, the system should be able to plan for training and skills needs that are of strategic policy importance – also considering the time needed to develop skills – while at the same time responding to immediate labour market needs.
Employer engagement in the apprenticeship system is therefore key. Employers can inform education and training providers about the skills the labour market needs both now and for the longer term, helping them to design and implement apprenticeship curricula that are relevant to such needs. The British Standard Institution (BSI) Review of Apprenticeship Governance in Scotland identified the need to involve employers in all aspects of apprenticeship governance as key to the transition to a new apprenticeship governance system (BSI, 2020[1]).
The Scottish Government has launched several initiatives to strengthen and improve apprenticeship governance so as to involve labour market actors more effectively and systematically:
Developing the Young Workforce – Youth Employment Strategy to improve young people's transition into employment with a focus on the role of vocational education in reducing youth unemployment (developed by Scottish Government in 2014). SAAB was set up following this plan.
The Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board (SAAB) was created in 2016 to provide employer leadership and contribute to the development of apprenticeships in Scotland. In 2019, the SAAB, supported by SDS, articulated a set of 14 principles, based on existing practice, international models and a wider stakeholder consultation exercise. These have helped define apprenticeships more clearly for all stakeholders (Box 2.1).
A reform of the strategy and approach to standards and frameworks to an employer-led approach. The apprenticeship development model is built through three stages (evidence and inputs, development, and documentation and approval), involving SAAB, Technical Expert Groups (TEGs) and Apprenticeship Approval Group (AAG), all of which are led by employers. These stages are supported by the Provider Group (made up of learning providers) and the Qualifications Design Group (made up of awarding bodies, providers and the regulator).
The Enterprise and Skills Review (ESR) to improve co-ordination in the skills system: The ESR seeks to align the relevant functions of Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and Skills Development Scotland (SDS) to ensure that Scotland’s agencies are able to equip Scotland's people and businesses with the right skills and experience to succeed in the economy, not just now but in the future. The Scottish Government, working closely with SDS and SFC, have identified a set of key elements of an aligned skills system, which include a single set of strategic skills guidance from Government to the Boards of both agencies which supports the delivery of the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board’s Strategic Plan; a Skills Committee of the Strategic Board which informs joint delivery by both agencies and provides a joint decision making forum; and a joint team led by a single director reporting to the Chief Executives of both agencies. Moreover, the Scottish Government is working closely with SDS and SFC to jointly deliver a skills planning and provision model which i) identifies skills needs in partnership with industry, other agencies, local government and the Enterprise and Skills Analytical Unit; ii) works with colleges, universities and training providers to respond to skills needs; iii) co-ordinates investment; iv) monitors and manages performance; and v) reviews and evaluates impact in partnership with the Analytical Unit. (Scottish Government, 2017[2]).
Implementation of the key drivers to transition to a new apprenticeship governance system, as identified by the BSI (Box 2.2). These include involving employers in all aspects of Scottish apprenticeship governance.
These initiatives, and increased co-operation between the various bodies, are promising signs for the future of apprenticeships in Scotland and show that the need for a stronger employer-driven system has already been widely recognised. However, fully implementing such a system is likely to require more radical reforms than have so far been envisaged.
2. Each apprenticeship is a programme of work-based learning designed to develop competence in a defined occupation and apprenticeship pathway.
3. Apprenticeships are available across a wide range of sectors where there is demonstrable industry demand.
4. Apprenticeships support inclusion and diversity and are designed to ensure there are no unnecessary barriers to learning or assessment.
5. Apprenticeship frameworks are based on occupational standards and integrate professional standards where necessary.
6. Standards, frameworks and qualifications are defined by industry which adapts to emerging and future needs.
7. Apprenticeships offer internationally recognised, accredited or externally quality assured vocational, technical and professional qualifications with clear pathways for progression.
8. Each apprenticeship framework describes the required learning content and method of learning and assessment.
9. The qualifications included in apprenticeship frameworks are designed to develop transferable skills.
10. Each apprentice is supported in the workplace by a competent mentor and in their learning and assessment by a qualified trainer/ educator/ assessor.
11. Apprenticeship learning is delivered to fit the requirements of the apprenticeship framework, the needs of the business and the individual’s pace of learning.
12. Employers and apprentice roles and responsibilities are clearly set out in an apprenticeship agreement.
13. Apprenticeships are underpinned by robust quality assurance processes.
14. Apprenticeship Framework documentation is clear, accessible and easy to understand.
Source: SAAB (2019[3]), Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board's Definition of an Apprenticeship. Recommendations to the Minister, www.stf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/scottish-apprenticeship-advisory-boards-definition-of-an-apprenticeship.pdf.
Employers should be given the opportunity to play a role throughout the entire apprenticeship policy cycle and process. This requires sufficient empowerment, incentives, resources and support, but also regulations on quality assurance of the training process, fair work and equity. The governance of apprenticeship systems therefore needs to include employers, trade unions/federations, government, providers, apprentices and qualification/education bodies.
Scotland acknowledges the need to effectively engage with employers to ensure that apprenticeships evolve with a changing labour market, and has or is currently implementing, several measures, including SAAB’s 14 principles (Box 2.1) and several of the BSI recommendations (Box 2.2). However, to systematically boost apprenticeships in the long term, Scotland will need to make further changes. SAAB’s principles have helped to clarify some of the basic principles of apprenticeships, but they could be taken further. As a minimum, these principles need to be used more consistently across the entire apprenticeship system. While the Apprentice Approval Group (AAG) considers these principles to be useful in terms of ensuring quality assurance of apprenticeships, BSI pointed out that more work needs to be done by all stakeholders in the apprenticeship ecosystem to explore the principles in more detail and jointly agree on “what constitutes as evidence in demonstrating the desired outcomes for each principle” (BSI, 2020[1]).
BSI identified the key drivers that can support the transition to a new apprenticeship governance system. These include:
Involving employers in all aspects of Scottish apprenticeship governance to ensure that, from design to delivery employer needs are considered and reflected appropriately.
Making the development of standards and frameworks more current and relevant to the occupation, building upon employee input.
Making use of employee input to build upon the best practice of actual work situations.
Updating evidence and directly engaging with employers, social and professional partners to reduce process time (contracted model to evolving Technical Expert Groups (TEG) model).
Integrating meta-skills into apprenticeship development at all levels.
Addressing fair work practices in the design and development of Scottish apprenticeships.
Ensuring efficiency, coherence and quality assurance in the apprenticeship approval mechanism through the Apprenticeship Approval Group (AAG).
Addressing the lack of apprenticeship coverage in some occupations by direct engagement with all relevant employers from any sector.
Strengthening alignment with functions of governance: development (TEG), approval (AAG) and leadership (SAAB SFG) alignment to ensure that the system delivers coherence across Scottish apprenticeships.
Source: BSI (2020[1]), Supporting the Development of Apprenticeships in Scotland: Review of the Apprenticeship Governance System.
2.1.1. Supporting an expanding role of employers in apprenticeships
Challenge: Scottish employers’ engagement in apprenticeships is limited
Employers can engage with the apprenticeship system either simply by offering apprenticeship jobs, or by becoming more deeply involved with the design, development and governance of the system. Under both measures, Scotland is underperforming relative to leading apprenticeship countries. According to the Scottish Employer Perspectives Survey 2019, about 16% of employers were offering apprenticeships at the time of the survey, unchanged from 2016 (IFF Research, 2019[4]). The survey estimates that 26% of the employers could potentially offer apprenticeships in the future. Despite these low levels, many employers value apprenticeships. For example, in a survey by Open University in 2020, 50% of Scottish employers acknowledged that apprenticeships and work-based learning would be vital to their organisation’s recovery over the next year (Open University, 2020[5]). Given employers acknowledge the benefit of apprenticeships, there may be systemic barriers preventing them from making use of the system – in addition to the continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The level of employer engagement in Scotland is generally similar to other countries in the United Kingdom: 19% of establishments were offering apprenticeships in England (United Kingdom) in 2019, 16% in Wales and 12% in Northern Ireland (IFF Research, 2020[6]). The distribution of engagement by firm size is also similar, as explored in Section 2.1.3 below. However, it is lower than in leading apprenticeship countries. About 24% of employers in Switzerland (gfs.bern, 2021[7]; gfs.bern, 2020[8]) and 21% in Germany provided apprenticeship opportunities in 2019 (BIBB, 2021[9]). However, no direct comparison is possible due to differences in governance and quality assurance mechanisms imposed on employers to train apprentices. For instance, only about half of German employers are eligible to offer apprenticeships.1
It is important to understand why employers do not engage in the apprenticeship system. Among Scottish employers not offering apprenticeships, one-third do not see apprenticeships as relevant to or suitable for their size or business (Figure 2.1). In more detail, 20% of these employers felt that apprenticeships are not suitable for a business of their size (20%) − a reason that was primarily cited by smaller employers with fewer than 10 employees – while 7% thought them not suitable for their specific business model and 5% not relevant to their specific business (5%). In addition, 13% had a perception that apprenticeships are not offered for their industry. These reasons may reflect a lack of information among employers about the range of apprenticeship frameworks applicable and how they can be tailored to their needs (IFF Research, 2019[4]), as well as a limited understanding of the benefits that apprenticeships can bring to employers.
Note: The base number is all employers who do not offer apprenticeships (=2 028).
Source: Re-categorised based on IFF Research (2019[4]), Scottish Employer Perspectives Survey 2019, https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-employer-perspectives-survey-eps-2019-research-report/pages/9/.
The limited number of apprenticeship offers is in line with employers’ relatively weak willingness or capacity to participate in the process of design, development, assessment and promotion of apprenticeships. Table 2.1 provides an assessment of the level of employer engagement in governance of the system in comparison to leading apprenticeship countries. This assessment suggests that active participation of employers is less apparent in some areas and is overall somewhat fragmented and inconsistent. As mentioned above, Scotland is working actively towards an employer-led apprenticeship system with the introduction of TEGs, the AAG and SAAB, which are employer-led bodies, and further measures to strengthen the system are underway. However, as discussed in Section 2.1.2, changes to the funding structures of some employer representative bodies, particularly the Sector Skills Councils, has reduced their operations and affected their ability to give all employers a voice in the system.
In Austria and Germany, employers play a particularly important role in the governance of the apprenticeship system, mainly through chambers of commerce and industry. The involvement of these chambers in apprenticeship is regulated by law. In these countries, employer bodies and employee representatives are together essentially in charge of taking decisions about the curricula, structure and content of apprenticeship training. They also have other responsibilities, such as accrediting companies, monitoring in-company training, organising the practical parts of the apprenticeship exam, and supporting companies and providing information about apprenticeship training (Cedefop, 2019[10]). In Switzerland, the involvement of professional organisations (trade and employer organisations and trade unions) is also required in apprenticeship policy making by law. These organisations have a leading role in the content and examination process and draft core curricula and examination rules (e.g., admission requirements, occupational profiles, the knowledge and skills to be acquired, and qualification procedures) (OECD, 2014[11]).
Two broad factors prevent employers from engaging more strongly in both the design and the delivery of apprenticeships in Scotland:
Scotland offers relatively few incentives and limited support for employers to offer apprenticeship jobs. Many OECD countries offer financial and non-financial incentives for employers to promote apprenticeship provision. These can be built into legislation and employer-driven apprenticeship governance or be implemented through a variety of measures. Scotland has some measures to support employers’ apprenticeship offers, but these do not explicitly provide incentives to deliver apprenticeships. Two quite different schemes offer financial support to employers offering apprenticeships to specific target groups: Adopt an Apprentice and Access to Work payments (Field, 2020[12]).2 However, the Adopt an Apprentice scheme is aimed at retaining existing apprentices under certain circumstances (such as economic downturns) but not engaging new apprentices in a normal business environment, so will not increase the number of apprenticeships on offer. Access to Work payments are not specifically targeted at apprenticeships and narrowly targets those with learning difficulties. In recognition of the challenges employers faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Apprenticeship Employer Grant (Table A.4) offered financial support for taking on an apprenticeship in 2020, but this is no longer available. Moreover, the support measures that do exist are often hard to navigate as they are scattered and cover more than just apprenticeships. Information on the take-up of existing financial support for employers is not readily available for evaluation and further improvement, partly because some of the relevant funding responsibility now sits with local authorities.
The apprenticeship system does not mandate strong employer engagement. Unlike many OECD countries, including many EU member states as well as Canada, Korea and the United States, Scotland has no legal basis for employer engagement in apprenticeship. SAAB’s 14 principles only define employers’ roles and responsibilities broadly. Standards and documentation define them in more detail but are not binding. Nor do the current conditions and principles that define apprenticeships ensure consistent and systemic support for employers, which is one of the reasons why there are so few support measures and incentives available. A strong legal framework could provide a more consistent foundation for funding and policy measures and set out a long-term vision for stakeholder engagement which could empower employers to become more involved in the apprenticeship system.
The next sub-section describes how employers could be effectively supported and encouraged to offer more apprenticeships, while the sub-section that follows explores how a legal framework could underpin such support mechanisms and encourage greater engagement.
Providing effective support and incentives for employers
There are several instruments that could be used to tackle the main barriers to providing apprenticeships:
Some employers could be given financial support to compensate for the costs incurred by taking on and training apprentices (see Box 2.3 for examples). It is important to note that the evidence on the effectiveness of financial incentives for employers is mixed and thus they should be well-targeted to minimise deadweight loss and piloted and evaluated to assess costs and benefits. They should also be combined with assistance for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) that may lack the capacity to access and effectively use such financial incentives (OECD, 2018[13]).
Intermediary agencies could facilitate the process of starting and managing apprenticeships, alleviating some of the administrative burden that falls on employers who take on apprentices (see Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3).
Employers can be encouraged to set up joint networks to provide the comprehensive training standards and frameworks require. Sharing or rotating apprentices can increase employers’ capacity to train apprentices, while also making their training more relevant (see Section 2.1.3).
Guidance and tailored advice can be offered by various stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, SDS, awarding bodies and learning providers, to better inform employers about apprenticeships and their benefits (see Finland example in Box 2.4). Training can also be provided to help employers effectively manage and deliver apprenticeships (see Section 2.1.3).
Scotland could build on these examples and its own experience and consider providing more unified, transparent and targeted incentives and support to encourage employers (especially small employers and those new to the system) not just to retain existing apprentices but also to take on new ones. Levy funding, in particular the Flexible Workforce Development Fund (FWDF), could be more actively used for this purpose, and also for engaging more employers in the apprenticeship agenda.
Austria: Financial incentives for training employers
Austria provides financial incentives for employers offering apprenticeships:
Direct subsidies and grants: since 2016, every company offering apprenticeships gets a direct public subsidy for each apprentice. This basic subsidy is linked to the apprenticeship wage and is gradually reduced over time in line with the increasing productivity of apprentices.
Criteria-based subsidies are intended to increase quality (e.g. coaching, building training alliances or providing extra preparation for trainers’ final examinations or qualifications), and/or foster provision for specific target groups (e.g. by employing apprentices from supra-company schemes). Companies must apply at their local apprenticeship office and provide proof of expenses, and are partly reimbursed up to a set amount.
Indirect subsidies: employers’ social security contributions for apprentices for sickness, unemployment and insurance are waived. Tax deductions enable employers to write off training expenditures.
Denmark: Employers’ Reimbursement Fund (AUB)
The Employers’ Reimbursement Fund is a collective structure that establishes a common fund to spread the cost and benefits of apprenticeship training among its members. All employers in Denmark make a contribution to this fund for each full-time employee. The fund is then used to reimburse employers when their apprentices attend a vocational school.
The Netherlands: Subsidies for training employers
Subsidies are paid to accredited companies that provide apprenticeships, to a maximum of EUR 2 700 per year per apprentice. There must be a valid contract between the education and training institution, the apprentice, and the company. Companies apply for this subsidy to compensate for the cost of work-based training. There are also subsidies at the sectoral level. In addition, companies are also eligible for a EUR 1 000 contribution to the training costs of their apprenticeship supervisors/mentors.
Estonia and Norway: Transfer of resources to firms to compensate for workplace training costs
In Estonia, depending on the apprenticeship contract between the education and training provider (a school in the case of Estonia), the company and the student, the provider can transfer up to 50% of the cost of each study place to the enterprise to cover the salary cost of workplace supervisors (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017[14]).
In Norway, apprenticeships are part of upper-secondary VET (which starts for most learners at age 16). They are typically organised on a 2+2 basis, with learners spending the first two years in full-time school-based education and the last two years in full-time work-based learning. As such, these programmes are one year longer than most other upper-secondary programmes (which last three years). However, public funding for the apprenticeship programme is in line with other three-year programmes: the state funds the two years of school-based education and provides grants to employers who train apprentices of an amount approximately equivalent to one year of school-based education. Therefore, this model allocates resources from schools to firms without increasing the total cost of provision and is a special type of subsidy based on the cost of VET student education.
Source: Kuczera (2017[15]), Incentives for Apprenticeship, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/55bb556d-en; Cedefop (2019[10]), Cedefop European database on apprenticeship schemes, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-visualisations/apprenticeship-schemes; Kurt (2019[16]), Companies Engaging in Dual VET: Do Financial Incentives Matter?, https://www.dcdualvet.org/wp-content/uploads/DC-dVET_Discussion-Note-Financial-Incentives.pdf; Cedefop (2021[17]), The Vienna training alliance model – Aid for companies in the Covid-19 crisis, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news-and-press/news/vienna-training-alliance-model-aid-companies-covid-19-crisis?src=email&freq=weekly;
The Finnish National Board of Education together with partners published a manual on transferring innovative work-based learning (WBL) practices. It is designed to help the many providers and stakeholders that are unsure how to select the most appropriate WBL model and apply it in their context. The manual is targeted at a range of different audiences including vocational education and training (VET) providers, colleges, training centres, and employers. It focuses on the process of transforming and innovating VET programmes and WBL practices. It encourages providers to identify good practice from other providers and also offers practical examples of how they can identify where improvements to WBL are required, how to plan to make such improvements and how to deal with changes that have been made.
Source: Musset (2019[18]), “Improving work-based learning in schools”, https://doi.org/10.1787/918caba5-en.
Establishing a legal framework for apprenticeship to support employer engagement and underpin incentives and support mechanisms
One route to systematically setting up and underpinning incentives and support measures for stronger employer engagement is the establishment of a legal framework for apprenticeships. As examples from Germany and Denmark show, apprenticeship systems with a “high degree of standardisation and consistency” can motivate employers to be more consistently involved in apprenticeships, and this consistency can be ensured through an established legal framework (Pfeifer, 2016[19]; Chankseliani and Anuar, 2019[20]). A study of five European countries (Ryan, 2000[21]) identified the existence of a strong institutional framework, including a legal framework, as an important condition for the successful implementation of apprenticeship training. A strong legal framework could:
Provide a foundation for funding and policy measures, enabling the apprenticeship system to expand in a more predictable and stable way.
Signal Scotland’s commitment to apprenticeships, raising their profile.
Empower and protect employers and apprentices by laying out clear definitions for all aspects of the apprenticeship system, including apprenticeship pathways; the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved; and the role of government in supporting employers, apprentices and training providers.
In Scotland, Developing the Young Workforce – Youth Employment Strategy (see above) forms the current policy basis for apprenticeships (Scottish Government, 2014[22]), combined with the existing labour and minimum wage laws set by the Low Pay Commission, an independent body that advises the UK Government (insofar as apprentices are employees). However, these frameworks do not sufficiently take into account the dual status of apprentices as students/learners and employees – as well as the role of apprenticeships in upskilling companies’ existing employees.
Most leading apprenticeship countries have a strong legal basis that exclusively covers apprenticeships and clearly defines what employers must commit to (Table 2.2). For instance, Austria’s Federal Act on the Vocational Training of Apprentices defines apprentices, the duration and end of training, authorised apprenticeship companies and trainers (prerequisites, duties) and also regulates the companies who host apprentices, training alliances, contracts and remuneration, funding, exams and certification. In other countries, apprenticeship legislation is fully embedded into wider VET or education legislation, as in Germany, and the Netherlands, where all aspects of apprenticeships are covered by the Law on Education and Vocational Education of 1995.
The establishment of a legal framework would require a thorough assessment of associated costs and benefits from the perspective of the long-term goal of developing an apprenticeship system that is more robust, systematic and sustainable but that remains flexible. Caution is needed not to impose too many roles and responsibilities on employers that could discourage them from offering training. Incentives and support measures for employers would be established based on the legal framework, and its foremost objective should be to help employers to meet the various quality requirements and guide them on how to initiate apprenticeships and obtain support from the government or relevant networks.
The design of a legal framework would also require a whole-of-government and stakeholder consultation process with discussion and co-operation among ministers, including, but not limited to, the Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training; the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work; and the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise. Denmark example shows that the adoption of the Apprenticeship Act did not stop the discussions on the legislation governing apprenticeships, but on the contrary, the early period after the adoption of the legislation saw a lively discussion on the design of the apprenticeships (Bøndergaard, 2014[24]).
Recognising the costs and benefits of having and building a legal framework for apprenticeships, several countries that previously had no legal basis for apprenticeships have succeeded in establishing one. For example, Korea enacted the Act on Supporting Industrial Site Work-Study Dual System in 2020 (Box 2.5). This act defines the roles and responsibilities of employers and other rules that ensure quality apprenticeships (KRIVET, 2019[25]).
A legal framework can come in many forms. An apprenticeship act is not the only way to form or use legal or regulatory instruments to leverage apprenticeships and employer engagement. For example, SAAB members highlighted during OECD consultations that they see value in the development of an employer charter to ensure consistency in the apprenticeship provision and the quality of experience for apprentices. Moreover, if appropriate, existing legislation can embed the apprenticeship elements with a clear aim to strengthen and expand apprenticeship provision.
Korea’s Act on Supporting the Apprenticeship System in 2020
Like Scotland, Korea has a high share, and an oversupply, of college degree holders. Similarly, its apprenticeships have been led by providers, rather than by industry, leading to skills mismatches. To tackle this, the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labour established an apprenticeship system in 2013 and has been expanding it with an aim of accommodating 120 000 apprentices by 2022. By 2019, about 15 000 companies had offered apprenticeships for almost 94 000 apprentices. Recent initiatives have expanded the apprenticeship target scope from graduates to currently enrolled students in apprenticeship high schools, Uni-Tech and IPP apprenticeships.
For quality purposes, the Act defines employer requirements and selection criteria, and sets restrictions on offering apprenticeships for participating companies. Companies with over 20 employees and appropriate human resources (HR) and training capacity can offer apprenticeships, as can companies of “excellent qualities”, or with particular specialties or innovations. Apprenticeships cannot be offered by employers with records of delayed payments, industrial accidents, cancelled apprenticeships and other evidence of negative conduct. The Act also defines requirements for in-company trainers and HR staff of training companies. On-the-job training must make up more than 50% of the total training time, while off-the-job training should make up 20-50%.
Source: KRIVET (2019[25]), Apprenticeship in Korea, www.krivet.re.kr/eng/eu/zc/euZ_prB.jsp?gn=E1%7CE120200898%7C0%7C3.
2.1.2. Strengthening the role of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board while improving the co-ordination among relevant stakeholders
SAAB works to ensure that apprenticeships are developed to meet industry and economic needs, ensure fair work, and develop job opportunities (Box 2.6). It was created in 2016 following the “Developing the Young Workforce – Youth Employment Strategy”, with the goal of developing an apprenticeship system led by employers. It is made up of leading employers and representatives from industry bodies across a range of sectors. It covers apprenticeship policies, standards and frameworks, communications, and funding, and has sub-groups on standards and frameworks, equalities, employer engagement, and apprentice engagement in addition to the group board.
SAAB has taken important steps to ensure it can effectively carry out its many responsibilities. However, many stakeholders, including SAAB members themselves, agree that it needs to be refreshed and strengthened. Given its voluntary nature, both in terms of membership and participation in activities (e.g., meetings, consultations), it has limited power and capacity to increase employer engagement in apprenticeships and ultimately to provide employers with a leading role in the apprenticeship system.
In order to enable employers to take this leading role, the SAAB’s first task would be to improve the co-ordination of relevant stakeholders and promote co-operation in the short term. In the longer term, SAAB could be central to the development of a legal framework providing more concrete definitions of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities within the apprenticeship system, in particular for employers (as discussed in Section 2.1.1). Such a framework could provide SAAB with a strong foundation upon which to build a more stable, well-co-ordinated and reactive governance of the apprenticeship system.
This section examines the governance of the apprenticeship system today – i.e., patterns and mechanisms for accommodating interdependence and co-ordinating activities of different actors within the apprenticeship system (Cedefop, 2016[26]) –to understand SAAB’s position and function. It discusses ways SAAB could strengthen its role, particularly increasing employer engagement in apprenticeships.
To ensure apprenticeships are demand/employer-led and aligned with industry needs, SAAB carries out multiple functions through specialised bodies.
SAAB Group Board: provides advice and makes recommendations on the guiding principles, operational policy, systems and structures supporting apprenticeships and influences relevant Scottish Government policy. It includes representatives from the five sub-groups that feed into this board.
Employer Engagement Group (EEG): informs and influences the strategic direction of policy with members acting as ambassadors for Scottish apprenticeships; supports and encourages employer participation in apprenticeships.
Employer Equalities Group (EEQ): addresses under-representation in apprenticeships and supports improved access, participation and outcomes; informs, influences and advocates for equalities policies and best practice, across SAAB groups and other employers.
Standards and Frameworks Group (SFG): oversees apprenticeship standards and framework development for apprenticeships; provides leadership on approvals governance through the AAG, while ensuring apprenticeships and demand are employer-led at each stage; ensures standards and frameworks are aligned with industry, economic growth, job and progression opportunities and develops transferable skills for occupations which have common currency across the United Kingdom. For “in school” apprenticeships this includes ensuring alignment with curriculum for excellence objectives.
Apprentice Engagement Group (AEG): communicates the benefits of Scottish apprenticeships to young people, employers, parents and other stakeholders; members act as ambassadors and are the face of apprenticeships in the Scottish system.
In addition, the independent Apprentice Approval Group (AAG) was established in 2020 upon recommendation of SAAB and is responsible for approving all Scottish apprenticeships. It is employer-led and aims to ensure Scottish apprenticeships meet the needs of employers. It works closely with the SAAB SFG as part of the governance structure. The Group reports to the Minister.
Source: SDS (2021[27]), Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board Structure and Remit, www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48448/saab-structure-and-remit-november-2021.pdf.
Challenge: SAAB lacks the powers needed to drive an employer-led apprenticeship system
In contrast to other employer organisations, such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) or Confederation of British Industry (CBI), SAAB is in a unique position as a single-purpose institution focusing only on apprenticeships. It has specific responsibilities and plays a valuable role advising government but lacks the wider spectrum of responsibilities which could have helped it to encourage employers to engage in the apprenticeship system. Despite its clear focus, SAAB does not have an authorising or approving role but rather is only able to endorse and recommend. Its membership and representation are also relatively limited; for example, many of its members represent British multinational companies. Stakeholder interviews with the OECD team also confirmed that SAAB’s membership has not changed much since its creation to broaden the group’s diversity and scope, and consequently its advice and recommendations – although since its creation and until mid-2022 eight new company members joined and fourteen left SAAB.
Table 2.3 outlines the favourable or ideal governance structure for an apprenticeship system as synthesised by Cedefop (2016[26]). When comparing this to the Scottish system, it is clear that SAAB will need a better enabling environment if it is to fulfil its mandate of strengthening employer engagement in apprenticeships and making the apprenticeship system employer driven. This would enable SAAB to take the lead in the apprenticeship system, consolidate the views of employers, and co-ordinate the apprenticeship activities of the TEG, AAG and employer organisations.
Factors that make up a weak “enabling environment” for SAAB, which otherwise could provide an opportunity to reach its full potential and fulfil its core mandate, include the following:
SAAB works without a legal framework. Employers’ responsibilities are defined in the apprenticeship standards and frameworks, but these are not legally binding and support mechanisms are weak (see Section 2.1.1).
Employers’ collective efforts are fragmented and still at a relatively low level. SAAB would be best placed to provide some form of centralised governance role, while embracing and leveraging the strengths and capacities of partner organisations including the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC),3 Sector Skills Councils/Organisations, Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Industry leadership groups, CBI Scotland4 and other employer stakeholders. However, SAAB still competes with, rather than co-ordinates, these bodies. The BSI (2020[1]) identified the decline of the Sector Skills Councils/Organisations as one reason why not all occupations, sectors, and sizes of firms have a voice in the apprenticeship system, arguing that “the current lack of coverage across all occupations is creating issues around the ownership of Scottish Apprenticeships”. It suggested a new model was needed that could achieve direct engagement with all relevant employers from any sector and “not just the ones where there is a strong sector skills organisation presence” (BSI, 2020[1]).
Benchmarks do not balance input and outcome measures. The SDS benchmarks, which also influence the work of SAAB, are currently oriented towards quantity of inputs (e.g., a target of having 30 000 apprenticeship starts) rather than quality (e.g., minimum requirements, see Section 2.3) or outputs (e.g., learning and labour market outcomes) although some work on outcome tracking is taking place (see Chapter 3). The focus on quantitative inputs is understandable given the clear need to further increase the number of apprenticeships and the fact that Scottish apprenticeships appear to already lead to sound learning and labour market outcomes, but this skewed balance of efforts will not meet the needs of an evolving apprenticeship system. As the number of apprenticeships grows, there will be a need to strike a more appropriate balance.
Compared to institutions in other countries that may be considered to play a similar role (Table 2.4), SAAB has relatively limited capacity and influence. In Germany, Chambers of Commerce and Industry undertake a comprehensive set of tasks in the apprenticeship system, including supervising apprentices, registering contracts, monitoring registered training employers and trainers, organising final assessments, and providing advice and support for training companies. The Chambers represent the voices of employers and are institutionally embedded in the structure of apprenticeships. This means that in practice, while apprenticeships in Scotland could operate without SAAB, those in Germany cannot operate without Chambers. The Chambers are employer-owned bodies that are relatively independent of government, and local chambers which operate apprenticeships are common throughout Germany.
Similarly, in Austria, the Federal Economic Chamber and the Chamber of Labour play a particularly important role in the governance of the apprenticeship system. They are essentially in charge of taking major decisions about in-company curricula, skills and qualification profiles, and the structure and content of apprenticeship training via their work in relevant advisory councils, for example the Federal Advisory Board on Apprenticeship (Bundesberufsausbildungsbeirat, BBAB) and state advisory boards (Landesberufsausbildungsbeiräte, LBABs). The regional apprenticeship offices of the Chamber of Commerce have considerable responsibilities, such as accrediting companies, monitoring in-company training, organising the practical elements of the final apprenticeship exams, doing essentially all the administrative documentation of training companies and in-company trainers, and providing information and giving support to companies about apprenticeship training (Cedefop, 2019[10]) (see Table 2.4).
As SAAB is a single-purpose institution, it is not well placed to advise employers on issues other than apprenticeships. In comparison, Austrian and German Chambers provide a diverse set of services unrelated to apprenticeships, which can provide opportunities to make connections and share information promoting apprenticeships when appropriate. As all firms and all apprenticeship contracts in Austria and Germany must be registered in their local chamber, this creates a wide network, contact points and information sources for apprentices and training companies.
This is not to suggest that SAAB should take over the responsibilities of other existing and effective groups – rather that SAAB cannot strengthen the apprenticeship system alone. In leading apprenticeship countries, employers and employer groups work together in a complex web at different levels. These include intermediary organisations and agencies, as seen in Table 2.4 (see also Box 2.7 for local level examples). In contrast, OECD stakeholder interviews found that some stakeholder groups in Scotland, such as those representing MSMEs and local-level actors, do not feel particularly well represented within SAAB and face hurdles in participating in the systemic process (see Section 2.1.3).
In leading apprenticeship countries, the bodies that play a similar role to SAAB are generally closely connected with well-established employer or industry groups at the local level. While Scotland has some local and sectoral level players, such as Lantra (a Sector Skills Council) which works together with SDS at the local level to design apprenticeship and gather input from employers, there are no clear links to SAAB (except indirectly via a TEG).
The importance of involving employers at different levels is also clear from the Danish VET system. Denmark has national, sectoral and local level advisory bodies – the VET advisory council, national trade committees (NTCs) and local training committees (LTCs) – which all engage with social partners. At the national level, social partners advise the education ministry on overall VET policy topics and help to determine the structure and framework for VET. Each trade has its NTC, funded by social partners. NTCs feed inputs into the advisory council, which is similar to SAAB but with a wider set of responsibilities. At the local level, LTCs5 co-operate with VET colleges over adapting curricula to respond to local labour market needs, strengthening contacts between the college and local employers, and delivering programmes, for example by securing work placements for students. They also serve as a link between local and national levels, ensuring that NTCs have a good overview of local circumstances, and that local policy is aligned with national objectives. For example, they assist and advise NTCs on approving local enterprises as qualified training establishments and in mediating conflicts between apprentices and enterprises (Andersen and Kruse, 2016[28]). The NTCs also have the ability to devolve responsibilities to the LTC when appropriate (Kuczera and Jeon, 2019[29]). In Norway and Switzerland the local level also plays a crucial role in the governance of the apprenticeship system (Box 2.7).
In recent years, Norway and Switzerland have both introduced local training agencies (LTAs), local intermediary organisations consisting of firms involved in apprentice training. In both countries, the starting point for the formation of the LTA was roughly similar: enabling more firms to participate in apprentice training. Despite similar goals, LTAs have developed differently in the two countries. In Norway, LTAs have evolved as general-purpose tools for the governance of apprentice training while in Switzerland they are restricted to small niches. In Norway, 80% of all apprenticeships are recruited by LTA member firms.
LTAs in Norway receive high levels of state subsidies, which implies high levels of dependency to the state, while those in Switzerland receive fees from the participating companies. LTAs in Norway provide links between local government and the firms in apprentice training and monitor training, but do not intervene in the training of individual member firms. LTAs in Switzerland are more active in running a training network, recruiting apprentices, organising a rotation plan, supervising the apprentices, and supporting the companies in their training tasks. They also function as mediators between the companies, apprentices and the cantonal authority in the quality assurance of apprenticeships.
Source: Michelsen et al. (2021[35]), “Training agencies as intermediary organisations in apprentice training in Norway and Switzerland: general purpose or niche production tools?”, https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1904437.
Scaling up SAAB’s efforts to reach out to and co-ordinate employers
SAAB is at the heart of Scotland’s endeavour to strengthen the apprenticeship system, but it has limited capacity to realise its full potential. Although SAAB has been led by extremely committed employer representatives, its volunteer membership has reached a practical limit relative to a desire to expand its capacity and influence. To support its co-operation and co-ordination with relevant stakeholders, SAAB should leverage existing employer networks, with the aim of expanding its influence to sectoral and local levels, with the assistance of SDS.
Employers in Scotland are not as well organised as those in many other OECD countries. Employer organisation density levels in the United Kingdom – measured as the share of private sector employees in firms affiliated to employer organisation – are among the lowest in the OECD (Figure 2.2). This low density means that even though SAAB engages with key employer organisations and several large multinationals, there are still many employers who are not members of these organisations and whose voices are therefore not well represented. This implies that engaging employers in Scotland will be more challenging or require greater efforts than in many other OECD countries.
Note: Latest year is 2008 for Greece, Ireland and Portugal; 2009 for Korea; 2012 for Denmark, France and Italy; 2013 for the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain; 2014 for Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany and Luxembourg; 2015 for Estonia and the Slovak Republic; 2016 for Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom; and 2017 for Austria.
Source: OECD (2019[36]), Negotiating Our Way Up: Collective Bargaining in a Changing World of Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/1fd2da34-en.
Employers’ associations and other relevant employer groups need to be better co-ordinated, both internally and with one another, to engage more effectively and efficiently in the apprenticeship system. A common challenge for all these groups is positioning themselves with a consolidated, coherent, clear and strong voice. For example, while a national body may take one position, sectoral and regional level bodies or employers’ associations representing different firm sizes may take other positions and adopt different strategies. This weakens the overall legitimacy and bargaining power of the national employers' representation and with it the stable, consistent and trusted provision of apprenticeships.
In Scotland, discussion during the OECD review pointed towards the unequal participation of employers from different sectors and firm sizes in apprenticeships. The government and relevant bodies in Scotland are aware of this imbalance and the need to address this issue. Aligning and clarifying the roles and responsibilities among employer-representing bodies – such as employers’ organisations, sectoral skills councils, industry leadership skills council, and local bodies as well as SAAB – would help reduce inefficiency in co-ordination and ultimately strengthen the role of SAAB as a central body in leading apprenticeships.
A legally binding framework with clear standards and a co-ordination mechanisms for the relevant employer bodies (in particular via SAAB) would support more and better collaboration. Regularly monitoring of SAAB could be helpful to assess how effective it is in engaging stakeholders in general (not just the members themselves but also a wider stakeholder group), and how effectively it is engaging stakeholders that are typically less well represented.
Increasing SAAB’s co-ordination and co-operation with other stakeholders
Employers’ involvement will be more effective where it is complemented by other stakeholders. Therefore, co-ordination between SAAB and other non-employer bodies needs to be streamlined. In particular, co-ordination with the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), as part of the strategic alignment of skills bodies, needs to be made more concrete; some efforts to increase collaboration between the two bodies are already underway (SFC, 2021[37]). The involvement of trade unions in the design, development and implementation of apprenticeships is also a key success factor. As apprenticeships are employment-based training arrangements, the active involvement of unions is crucial, especially on advancing the fair work agenda (OECD/ILO, 2017[38]). With the new TEG approach to the development of frameworks an important step has been taken to increase trade union involvement in the Scottish apprenticeship system.
Practical recommendations for strengthening the role of SAAB
Scotland may need to explore different models for the structure and operation of SAAB, but meanwhile, there are practical steps that could strengthen its role by improving the co-ordination of relevant stakeholders:
Expanding and diversifying the mechanisms through which employers can engage. SAAB should improve the representativeness of its membership to reflect the business reality in Scotland where 97% of businesses are MSMEs (UK DBEIS, 2020[39]). SAAB should actively identify employer organisations that are well-suited to represent and actively engage with under-represented groups. Rotating its membership or expanding it to all employers offering apprenticeships could be helpful. Online SAAB meetings have allowed a wider range of employer participation and consultation, which could continue. For offline meetings, which also have their own benefits, a travel subsidy for MSME members and under-represented sectors could help widen participation.
Strengthening collaboration with the wider skills system. This includes working with the SFC, higher education institutions, secondary school representatives, awarding bodies and Education Scotland to better integrate the apprenticeship system into the broader skills system in Scotland. For example, the SFC recently recommended that SAAB includes representatives from the SFC in order to bring coherence to planning, funding and policy development functions (SFC, 2021[37]). In the context of new funding management, SAAB and the SFC need to co-plan the provision of Foundation and Graduate Apprenticeships based on industry demand in order to avoid dividing their efforts between two different agencies and discouraging employers from engaging with the system.
Setting challenging goals. SAAB needs goals that will lead to visible achievement and have a direct impact on employers and their skill pipeline. SAAB should ask bold questions of its members and other stakeholders in the Scottish apprenticeship system so that it is forced to think more strategically. The next step would then be a robust performance assessment against those challenging goals.
Leveraging existing local networks and resources. One key precondition for effective apprenticeships is local partnerships between training providers and the employers providing the workplace training. Such partnerships facilitate the initial offer of workplace training (in the case of FAs) or employment for the duration of the apprenticeship (in the case of MAs and GAs). Subsequent exchanges between the training providers and employers take place to ensure that the on-the-job or workplace training fits effectively into the apprenticeship programmes. It could be beneficial for Scotland to build upon existing partnerships at the local level, encourage further partnerships, and connect those effort to the national level through SAAB.
Table 2.4 shows examples of co-ordination mechanisms used by other countries, while Box 2.8 describes how Australia use a toolkit to help engage stakeholders in policy domains, including skills. This toolkit begins with a mapping exercise to identify the right groups to engage with at a particular stage of the policy cycle, as well as the composition of target groups. It also delineates the risk of not including these groups.
Australia: A government toolkit to engage stakeholders in policy design and delivery
The government of Australia has produced a toolkit to help the public sector engage stakeholders in different policy domains, including skills. The toolkit identifies the key elements of effective engagement:
Involve the right people: To identify the right stakeholders, it should be clear why there is a need to engage them and what the scope of the engagement will be. Who needs to know? Who has an interest? The answers will ultimately determine the composition of the target group of stakeholders. The risks of not engaging particular stakeholders should also be considered.
Use a fit-for-purpose approach: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to engaging stakeholders – each interaction should be tailored. Stakeholders have different expertise, objectives and capacity to engage with government. Do not assume that what worked for one situation will work for another. Often a mix of approaches will be needed and policy makers may need the flexibility to adjust their approach quickly.
Manage expectations: Stakeholders should have a clear understanding of how their contributions will be used, and the degree of influence their input will have as approaches to policy design and implementation are formulated. When stakeholders’ expectations cannot be met, anger, frustration or cynicism may result, which will affect the current and future relationship with the government. The purpose of the engagement and the role of participants, including how their input will be used, need to be clear from the beginning.
Use the information: Engagement is not just about collecting information, it should involve a process of responding to the gathered information to shape and improve the quality of the initiative. Information from stakeholders may also indicate whether the engagement approach itself needs to change. Greater organisational benefits will flow if lessons learned from engagement are shared across the agency, particularly when the agency regularly engages with the same set of stakeholders on a variety of issues.
The toolkit also assesses common challenges to stakeholder engagement. These include: 1) the purpose of the engagement may not be clear; 2) stakeholders may have limited capacity and resources (time, people and money) to engage with the government; 3) government may have limited experience and skills to implement effective stakeholder engagement; 4) unfocused dialogue may cause stakeholders to highlight a range of issues that are important to them but not related to the government initiative that is the object of the engagement; and 5) failure to review and evaluate may negatively affect the capacity to assess the results of the approach. The engagement plan should include review points throughout the policy design and implementation, with the flexibility to adjust the approach if needed.
Source: Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2013[40]), Cabinet Implementation Unit Toolkit: 3. Engaging Stakeholders, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/2014%2011%2014-%201%20Planning%20-%20Final.rtf.
2.1.3. Engaging smaller employers in the apprenticeship system
Challenge: Small employers are less engaged in apprenticeships
In many OECD countries, small employers are the engine of employment, and Scotland is no exception. According to the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 97% of businesses in Scotland employed under 50 employees (small or micro businesses) in 2018-20; 81% were micro business with 1-9 employees (UK DBEIS, 2020[39]). While these shares are similar to the UK averages of 97% and 82% (UK DBEIS, 2020[39]), they are relatively high from an international perspective. The United Kingdom had the third highest share of micro businesses among 26 OECD countries in 2018 (Figure 2.3). Therefore, actively involving MSMEs in apprenticeships will be key to strengthening and expanding the Scottish apprenticeship system.
Note: Austria data include provisional data. Data from Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom include confidential data that were excluded from the database.
Source: Eurostat (2021[41]), Eurostat database, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database [bd_9fh_sz_cl_r2]; the US data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020[42]), Distribution of private sector firms by size class, https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_g.txt & Distribution of private sector employment by firm size class https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt.
Although in total there are more MSMEs in Scotland offering apprenticeships than large enterprises, the shares do not reflect their relative importance to the economy. Only about 8% of establishments with 2-4 employees and 15% with 5-9 employees offer apprenticeships (a combined total of 10 800) compared to 56% of establishments with more than 100 employees (a total of about 1 900 establishments) (Figure 2.4, Panel A). This suggests that many MSMEs in Scotland face barriers to engaging in apprenticeships. Many countries face similar difficulties, including Denmark (DEG, 2021[43]), England (United Kingdom) (IFF Research, 2020[6]) and Germany (BIBB, 2021[9]). International data from the European Continuing Vocational Training Survey show that only 27% of employers with 10-49 employees in the EU-28 employed initial VET students (apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning) in 2015, compared to 59% of large enterprises (at least 250 employees). However, the difference between small and large enterprises is particularly striking in the United Kingdom (27% vs. 69%), with only France and Estonia having a larger gap (Figure 2.4, Panel B).
Note: Initial VET refers upper secondary VET at ISCED level 3, which is equivalent to SCQF 5-7 levels. See Box A.2 in Annex A for more details. VET refers both apprenticeships and school-based VET programmes designed for learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and competences specific to a particular occupation, trade, or class of occupations or trades (OECD, 2017[44]).
Source: IFF Research (IFF Research, 2019[4]), Scottish Employer Perspectives Survey 2019, https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-employer-perspectives-survey-eps-2019-research-report/pages/9. Eurostat (2015[45]), CVTS 2015, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/continuing-vocational-training-survey.
There are many reasons why MSMEs might not offer apprenticeships. As mentioned above, the 2019 Employer Perspective Survey (EPS) found that 20% of all employers which did not offer apprenticeships failed to do so because they believed they were not suitable for a firm of their size (IFF Research, 2019[4]). This may point to a lack of awareness or knowledge among some small employers as to the breadth of apprenticeship frameworks available and the ability to tailor apprenticeships to their needs (IFF Research, 2019[4]). It may also reflect a “conservative bias” among training providers (see Section 2.2): because larger employers are often more familiar with apprenticeships, training providers may find it easier to build volume through existing partnerships with large employers, rather than seeking out smaller employers with little or no apprenticeship experience (Field, 2020[12]).
Supporting MSMEs to increase the quality provision of work-based learning
Strengthening MSMEs’ capacity to deliver quality apprenticeships could help encourage new employers to engage in the system (OECD/ILO, 2017[38]). The means to do this could include:
Providing targeted financial and policy support to strengthen MSMEs’ capacity. MSMEs are often unable to provide apprenticeships due to reasons such as their size, variable demand, perceived lack of utility or issues with skills matching (Steedman, 2015[46]), meaning they require more specialised assistance.6 Many countries provide targeted or more generous financial incentives for MSMEs. Sharing in-company trainers with large companies within their supply chain can be helpful, as can the training alliance models developed in in other countries (Box 2.9). These could also be used to strengthen capacity among MSMEs which have just started to engage in apprenticeship provision.
Promoting the development of collective training offices. MSMEs are less likely to have well-developed HR and support functions that can find, train, support and protect apprentices. Several countries provide the option of collective or inter-company training to reduce the burden of apprenticeship provision, assessment and administrative costs. Such arrangements can not only help new employers provide training to apprentices, but also offer networking opportunities and gradually strengthen their training capacity and quality. The Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board recommended exploring group training schemes for micro businesses to share training costs and HR support in partnership with larger firms, chambers of commerce, the FSB, trade bodies and sectoral industry leadership groups (ESSB, 2020[47]). Such an approach is useful for building non-firm specific skills including meta-skills and sectoral and occupational skills. Scotland could build on existing initiatives, for example expanding the “Adopt an Apprentice” scheme so that different employers (in particular MSMEs) can assist in providing a breadth of work to cover the entire apprenticeship curriculum. It could also gain insight from existing consultation results such as those from CITB Training Group Consultation (CITB, 2021[48]), and examples from other countries (Box 2.9).
Rotating apprentices among groups of MSMEs or training networks. MSMEs tend to have more specialised operations and may thus require very specific skillsets from apprentices. Their narrow focus, particularly among micro enterprises, may leave them unable to develop the full range of skills among their apprentices that might be required by standards and frameworks. As with collective training offices, rotating apprentices could help MSMEs to collectively cover the training their apprentices need to complete their apprenticeship, allowing them to benefit from experiencing a range of different work environments and production technologies.
Austria: Training alliance model to support training companies
In Austria, companies that have difficulty in meeting certain standards – for example because they are too small or too specialised to provide their apprentices with the training required – may form training alliances. These alliances are supervised at the state level by the Apprenticeship Offices appointed by Economic Chambers. The Economic Chambers help to find partners for firms willing to create new training alliances.
Moreover, social partners and educational researchers recently designed a new training alliance model to support training companies severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular those from the hotel and restaurant sector in Vienna (supplementing the support offered at the federal level, such as short-time work, apprentice bonuses for newly concluded apprenticeships). Under this special alliance model, company-based training can be temporarily taken over by supra-company training providers, with the costs of the training alliance and the training allowance covered by the public sector. The model was developed by the Economic Chamber, the Chamber of Labour, the public employment service (AMS Vienna) and the Vienna Employment Promotion Fund (Wiener Arbeiterinnen Förderungsfonds, Waff), with conceptual support from research institutes. The outsourced training is conducted in two-month long modules. A maximum of two modules can be taken per apprenticeship year. The modules cover selected content related to the job profile of the relevant apprenticeship year, which can be individually adapted. The training is recorded in a co-operation agreement (between the company and the apprentice) which, in legal terms, is a supplement to the apprenticeship contract. The training costs are covered jointly by Waff and AMS Vienna during the co-operation measure.
Australia, Norway and Switzerland: Group/collective training organisations for MSMEs
Collective training offices are organisations that mediate between employers, apprentices and the government. The precise structure differs across apprenticeship systems but their common feature is that they shift the bureaucratic and administrative burden of engaging with the apprenticeship system away from employers. This enables more employers to engage with the system.
In Australia, group training organisations (GTOs) are not-for-profit enterprises but receive government funding. GTOs employ apprentices and allocate them to host employers, who pay a fee to the GTOs. In addition to recruiting apprentices, GTOs also support enterprises in administration, management of on- and off-the-job training, and the rotation of apprentices among participating employers to ensure that apprentices acquire the full range of experience.
In Norway, collective training offices are owned by employers and are usually related to specific trades. They sign apprenticeship contracts with the government on behalf of groups of small firms who offer training places. This shifts the legal obligation for off-the-job training to the collective organisations, who are then able to use economies of scale to provide a full range of training services to apprentices. They aim to facilitate apprenticeships by identifying potential training companies and supporting employers and the staff involved in apprenticeships. This is particularly useful for smaller firms which would not otherwise be able to meet the national minimum standards for training apprentices and helps uphold the quality of apprenticeship programme.
In Switzerland, enterprises group together in host company networks to share responsibility for apprentice training. This arrangement is aimed at maximising the training potential of MSMEs and/ or those companies that are too specialised to cover all the competences specified in a defined VET curriculum on their own but may be able to offer the full spectrum by joining forces as a group. Usually, one enterprise takes the role of co-ordinator and organises the coaching, training and rotation of apprentices between other companies during their apprenticeship.
Germany: Meeting the needs of SMEs by customising apprenticeship placements
In 2007, the German federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy developed a programme (PV) to strengthen the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector by customising apprenticeship placements. Intermediaries that help place apprentices into suitable positions are common in Germany, and come in different forms such as 1) a lead enterprise with overall responsibility for training partnering with other enterprises to co-deliver it; 2) several small enterprises working together to take on trainees; and 3) individual enterprises establishing an organisation for the purpose of the training that takes over the organisational and administrative tasks, while the lead enterprises offer the training (Poulsen and Eberhardt, 2016[49]). The PV programme provides funding to agencies such as intermediate training placement companies and chambers of commerce, which then match candidates with businesses.
The programme helped to make apprenticeships more attractive among SMEs. The majority of targeted SMEs found that they received accurate and appropriate apprentices for the apprenticeship vacancies available and the programme allowed them to save 40-50% of apprenticeship recruitment costs. Similarly, around 90% of apprenticeship applicants found the mediation services “largely helpful”.
Source: Cedefop (2021), The Vienna training alliance model – Aid for companies in the Covid-19 crisis, www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/vienna-training-alliance-model-aid-companies-covid-19-crisis?src=email&freq=weekly. OECD/ILO (2017[38]), Engaging Employers in Apprenticeship Opportunities: Making It Happen Locally, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266681-en; ILO (ILO, 2020[50]), ILO Toolkit for Quality Apprenticeships. Volume 2 Guide for Practitioners: Innovations and strategies in apprenticeships, www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_751118.pdf.
Recommendations and implementation for strengthening the role of employers in the apprenticeship system
Scotland can build upon the successful establishment of SAAB, the TEGs and AAG and their products and achievements, including the key principles, standards and frameworks, to further strengthen employer engagement in the apprenticeship system. Specifically, the OECD recommends that Scotland:
Provide incentives and support mechanisms for employers to offer workplace training and engage in the governance of apprenticeships. Targeted financial support can be offered to encourage employers who would not otherwise take on apprentices to do so and compensate for the costs involved. In addition, non-financial support, for example, for setting up training alliances or intermediary agencies and offering guidance and tailored advice, can also make it easier for employers to take on apprentices and build and strengthen training capacity.
Establish a legal framework that not only ensures consistent policy and financial support for apprenticeships and employers but also defines the role of employers in the apprenticeship system. The aim should be to increase systemic, stable employer engagement and reduce the burden of time and resource costs involved in updating principles and guidelines. It will require a whole-of-government and stakeholder consultation to agree on the form and content of such a framework. This legal framework does not necessarily need to focus solely on apprenticeships but should in some form achieve the goal of supporting apprenticeships and increasing employer engagement covering the entire apprenticeship family and all learners.
Increase the capacity and influence of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board (SAAB) to help strengthen the role of employers in the apprenticeship system. This can be done through better co-ordination and co-operation with the relevant stakeholders, in particular employer groups. SAAB should focus on consolidating fragmented activities by different employer groups and individual employers, and leverage the SCC, Sector Skills Councils/Organisations, the FSB, industry leadership groups, CBI Scotland and other employer stakeholders. SAAB should also increase co-ordination with and among non-employer actors, including unions and providers. These efforts can build upon existing sectoral and regional networks, with the assistance of SDS.
Strengthen the training capacity of MSMEs and better integrate them into SAAB to increase their representation in the apprenticeships system. After assessing where MSMEs need the most support, they can be given targeted financial and policy support, such as the option of collective or inter-company training. Funding for such support, should be secured including through the FWDF.
An effective, resilient and responsive skills system is one that delivers the changing skills mix the economy needs. This means that decisions about the type and mix of training on offer reflect the needs of employers and learners. However, Scotland gives too large a role to learning providers in driving the mix of provision, compared to other countries (Field, 2020[12]). In other words, learning providers are acting as mediators in Scotland, whereas in leading apprenticeship countries, this role is played by employers and dedicated intermediary agencies. Under the current funding system, learning providers could be biased in favour of programmes that are less costly or easier to deliver. Hence, even if the system is built on clear policy priorities and involves employers, there is a risk that the apprenticeship opportunities provided will not meet labour market needs. To avoid such imbalances, Scotland should develop a more demand-led apprenticeship system, supported by increased employer engagement (discussed in Section 2.1 above), while maintaining space for strategic funding priorities.
Challenge: The current apprenticeship system is mediated by training providers
In Scotland, the total number of apprenticeship positions offered is primarily a policy decision taken centrally by the Scottish government. The mix of provision – such as the proportion of different occupational groups, Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) levels, gender, and age groups – is determined by a complex sequence of decisions taken by SDS and mediated by learning providers based on inputs and estimates from employers and potential apprentices. This complexity means that it is very difficult to ensure that the scale and mix of provision meets the needs of either the labour market or individuals (Field, 2020[12]). However, recent changes have made funding priorities clearer and more streamlined, with more emphasis on equalities (SDS, 2022[51]).
The funding system for Modern Apprenticeships (MAs) observed during the time of the OECD review reflects the fact that the apprenticeship system is provider-mediated (Figure 2.5). Government funding is conceived as a partial subsidy to be supplemented by employers. The aim of public sector funding for apprenticeships is to encourage training that would otherwise not take place. However, this funding cannot be allocated efficiently and flexibly as the exact costs of training delivery are unknown, being a commercial matter between learning providers and employers. This means that SDS does not know the extent to which contribution rates fully cover the costs of training, either for individual learning providers or for individual apprenticeship frameworks (Auditor General for Scotland, 2014[52]). This funding system is very different from that in many other countries.
Locally there is competition between different learning providers in seeking to “sell” apprenticeships to employers (Field, 2020[12]), and they provide employers with advice on the suitability of different apprenticeship options – which also reflects that one of the evaluation criteria for learning providers is employer involvement (SDS, 2021[53]). Hence different parts of the system may be responding in different ways to existing incentives. How all of these factors work together to drive the mix of provision is unclear (Field, 2020[12]).
Note: For those aged 16-19, the SDS’ contribution rates range from GBP 1 300 (customer service, at SCQF 5) to GBP 10 200 (engineering, at SCQF 6). For those aged 20-24, they range from GBP 500 to GBP 8 600 and for older apprentices, from GBP 300 to GBP 8 000 (over the entire apprenticeship programme for 2021-22) [https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48180/2021-22-appendix-1-ma-contribution-table-010921.pdf]. Financial contributions are based on: the estimated costs of the framework, in terms of administration, taught elements, assessment and core and career skills requirements; and policy priorities, including the prioritisation of younger participants, tackling occupational segregation, and supporting strategic growth sectors.
Source: OECD elaboration based on Field (2020[12]), Strengthening Skills in Scotland, http://www.oecd.org/skills/centre-for-skills/Strengthening_Skills_in_Scotland.pdf. SDS (2021[54]), Modern Apprenticeship Contribution Table 2021-22, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48180/2021-22-appendix-1-ma-contribution-table-010921.pdf.
Just as the number of apprenticeships offered should reflect the requirements of the Scottish economy and apprentices themselves, so should the mix of apprenticeship provision. SDS allocates apprenticeship places in designated occupational sectors. Although learning providers cannot allocate their apprenticeship places entirely as they wish -as all the apprenticeships delivered correspond to a participating employer and a participating apprentice-, they may still steer the mix of provision to reflect their own preferences (e.g., training that is easy and less costly to provide). If demand from employers for apprenticeships exceeds supply then learning providers end up in a strong position in choosing how to allocate provision (Field, 2020[12]). Off-the-job learning providers that receive public funding can be partially or heavily biased in how they identify employers and apprentices to work with. From their point of view, these are rational decisions allowing them to minimize costs and operate efficiently. For example:
A conservative bias leads providers to prefer to deliver training that was previously delivered as they consider it easier or less costly. This may be due to the skills of the existing teaching staff, the equipment available, and organisational familiarity with particular apprenticeship frameworks.
An ease of training bias results in learning providers choosing training that is less costly or resource intensive, for example to apprentices with some existing knowledge and skills or to apprentices working close to the provider’s site.
A commercial bias favours employers who have training budgets from which they can readily fund off-the-job training of apprentices. On commercial grounds, learning providers will prefer employers who are more willing or able to pay.
The collective impact of these apparently rational decisions could be significant and result in a mix of provision that, at least in part, reflects the interests of learning providers rather than those of the labour market and apprentices.
Moving towards a more demand-led funding system
A demand-led or market-based apprenticeship system delivers the scale and mix of apprenticeships as determined by market requirements, which would tend to vary with the economic cycle (Brunello, 2009[55]), without mediation by training providers. In such a system, engaging employers in different phases of apprenticeship design and delivery is crucial, as argued in Section 2.1 above. An agile apprenticeship system must be able to respond effectively to rapidly evolving requirements, which may include involving new and small employers in innovative fields. This could make it harder to provide off-the-job training, as it would require new equipment and staff. From this perspective, otherwise rational decisions by learning providers could result in non-ideal outcomes for the skills system and labour market as a whole. In a demand-led system, providers would have little scope to steer provision towards apprenticeships that are easy or easier to deliver. This approach would still permit the pursuit of strategic policy objectives, however, such as an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) apprenticeships, increasing the proportion of higher-level apprenticeships or tackling specific skills shortages. These objectives could be achieved through targeted incentive payments to employers.
Scotland should therefore move towards a more demand-led apprenticeship system that goes hand in hand with fully funded off-the-job training (for apprenticeships that offer off-the-job training), discussed in Chapter 4. The details of how to design such a system are described in the “Recommendations and implementation” box below. In parallel, Scotland should also work on:
Updating standards and frameworks to respond to changing requirements in the labour market, while allowing apprenticeship training providers some flexibility to address local skills needs.
Ensuring that learning providers regularly update their workforce’s technical and pedagogical skills, for example, by encouraging the recruitment of trainers who have work experience in industry and providing relevant training to the workforce (OECD, 2021[56]).
Collecting relevant data to support a demand-led system. The mix of provision needs to respond quickly to the changing needs of the labour market sectorally, regionally and in terms of occupations. Balancing demand and supply will require better information on the number of potential apprentices, and employers willing to offer apprenticeship jobs. This could be achieved by collecting data on admission rates (the share of those applying for apprenticeships who were successful). Currently SDS does not collect such data, but examples from Germany and Switzerland can offer some insight.
Recommendations and implementation for building a more demand-led funding system for apprenticeships
To align its apprenticeship system with the needs of employers, Scotland should build a more demand-led funding system in which employers determine the provision of apprenticeships.
Determine the mix and total number of apprenticeships by labour market demand, so that an apprenticeship contract between an employer and an apprentice should automatically trigger fully funded off-the-job training provision and assessment (see Chapter 4). Learning providers contracted by SDS should meet the scale and mix of demand defined by the apprenticeship contracts concluded between employers and apprentices. This reform can be more effectively implemented if off-the job training is fully funded (Chapter 4), which would discourage the current secondary market in which training providers negotiate financial contributions from employers.
Launch a pilot to determine how the total number of apprenticeships in the piloted sectors increase due to the increased funding available for older apprentices. The evaluation of the pilot should also examine how the age and regional mix of apprenticeship changes and any implications for equity. Employers and apprentices should be surveyed on their experiences, and to estimate the added effects of the funding changes, looking at possible deadweight costs. To estimate the additional expenditure impact, there would need to be careful assessment of the extent to which provision is displacing other types of education and training programmes, including higher education, and the net public expenditure implications (see Section 4.1).
Establish incentives through extra payments to employers offering apprenticeships meeting defined criteria, e.g., in line with strategic priorities (see Section 2.1). This could be used to encourage apprenticeships in STEM fields for example or expand existing incentives for people with a disability.
Combine demand-led funding with efforts to update standards and frameworks to respond to changing requirements of the economy alongside investment in the skills of the teaching and training workforce.
High-quality apprenticeships have well-defined and high-standard requirements (OECD, 2018[13]). An apprenticeship represents career training for an occupation. Learning a broad skill set, rather than just a specific skill, can take a number of years. Substantial periods of training may also be necessary for employers to realise benefits from offering apprenticeships, as relatively skilled apprentices become increasingly productive towards the end of their apprenticeship programme (Kuczera, 2017[57]; SDS, 2020[58]). High-quality apprenticeships also balance on- and off-the-job training and meta-skill requirements. While practical learning by doing in the workplace is hugely valuable, the rationale behind apprenticeships is the widespread recognition that more theoretical requirements are best acquired in the classroom and that the two forms of learning are complementary. Many countries therefore expect apprenticeships to involve a combination of on- and off-the-job training (Field, 2020[12]).
Challenge: There are no clear minimum requirements for Scottish apprenticeships
One of the defining strengths of apprenticeships in general is that they offer substantial career training through a structured blend of work-based learning and off-the-job training. By international standards, Scotland’s apprenticeship system is exceptionally flexible in respect to programme length and the mix of off- and on-the-job training. While this flexibility allows providers and apprentices to more easily adapt to particular needs, it may risk weakening the perception of apprenticeships as a recognised and respected way of gaining skills and education.
Unlike in Scotland, apprenticeship systems in many other countries require a certain length of training, typically by regulation. Apprenticeship frameworks often, but not always, contain guidelines on expected programme length (Field, 2020[12]). The SAAB report (SAAB, 2019[3]) makes no specific recommendation on the length of apprenticeships as one of its 14 principles but suggests that such a minimum might be desirable. While there are no regular data on the length of apprenticeships in Scotland, an indirect estimate suggests that apprenticeships are around 20 months long on average with substantial difference across programmes (Field, 2020[12]).
Scottish apprenticeships are shorter on average than in most countries, and some are less than 12 months which is particularly unusual by international standards (Figure 2.6). Within the United Kingdom, apprenticeships in Northern Ireland usually take at least two years and up to four years according to official guidance, but they are not “time-served” (Northern Ireland Government, 2017[59]). In England, following recommendations in the Richard report, apprenticeships are now required to last a minimum of 12 months (Powell, 2019[60]).
Internationally, apprenticeships are considered to require a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job training. A group of international organisations working in this area, have agreed on the following definition: “Apprenticeships provide occupational skills and typically lead to a recognised qualification. They combine learning in the workplace with school-based learning in a structured way. In most cases, apprenticeships last several years. Most often the apprentice is considered an employee and has a work contract and a salary” (Inter-agency Group on Technical and Vocational Education and Training, 2018[61]). The leading apprenticeship countries reserve a non-negligible proportion of an apprenticeship to off-the-job training.
Only some Scottish frameworks specify off-the-job training requirements as there is no general rule for how much off-the-job training is included in an MA. For example, the MA in food and drink operations at SCQF Level 6 requires that 10% of programme time should be spent in off-the-job training for pathways 1-6, and 20% for pathway 7 (National Skills Academy for Food and Drink, 2021[62]). However, many other frameworks make no mention of off-the-job training requirements. During their visit to Scotland, the OECD team were told that some apprenticeship programmes, up to two years in length, are delivered without any off-the-job training.
This may be related to the fact that, as indicated by the SAAB report (SAAB, 2019[3]), “off-the-job” has various interpretations. It could refer to training outside productive work (but possibly still at the workplace), training at a location other than the workplace, or training delivered by a provider other than the employer. In Scotland, the employer can also qualify as a learning provider – in which case they may be delivering some classroom elements of an apprenticeship programme within the workplace but separate from productive work. SAAB has proposed leaving off-the-job requirements to individual industry sectors – its guidance for employers and sector groups is yet to come (SAAB, 2019[3]).
The Scottish approach to off-the-job training is also different from that of other countries. First, it is more closely linked to generic job skills than to factors of general or academic education (e.g. covering subjects such as mathematics, English, foreign language, science and humanities). Second, the requirement is linked to demonstrated competences rather than required time in off-the-job education (Box 2.10).
While very short programmes, or those with little or no off-the-job training, may be delivering useful workplace skills and deserve support, this does not mean that they fit the definition of an apprenticeship. In particular, a not-insignificant proportion of Scottish apprenticeships are much shorter and deliver much less off-the-job training, than most international counterparts, including other parts of the United Kingdom. A lack of data on programme lengths and minimum requirements for off-the-job training also leaves much uncertainty, both for students and employers, about what an apprenticeship usually involves. In Germany, very detailed data on apprenticeship time structures are available, not just about on- and off-the-job training but beyond. Work is underway in Scotland to tackle these drawbacks, such as developing new standards including guidance on minimum durations and designing new apprenticeship frameworks.
Note: For Scotland, estimated average length of programme is calculated as the ratio of those in training to starts in the course of one year. The result is adjusted upwards to reflect the proportion of non-completers (24%) who are assumed to only complete half the programme length. Italy only includes apprenticeship for those aged 15-25.
Source: Field (2020[12]), Strengthening skills in Scotland, http://www.oecd.org/skills/centre-for-skills/Strengthening_Skills_in_Scotland.pdf; OECD (2014[63]), G20-OECD-EC Conference on Quality Apprenticeship. Country information on apprenticeship, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Youth%20questionnaire%20country%20responses-Compilation1.pdf. Austria, Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Israel, Portugal, and Slovak Republic from OECD (2020[64]), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
One important function of off-the-job training is to provide a general education. This may parallel the general education delivered to those in academic secondary education, particularly for young apprentices.
In Scotland, until recently, Modern Apprentices have been expected to be certificated in a set of five “core skills”, namely communication, working with others, problem solving, information and communication technology, and numeracy. Sometimes apprentices will already have achieved the core skills as part of their prior school qualifications or as integrated into the Scottish national curriculum. Alternatively, if the core skills can be mapped onto the relevant parts of the qualification which is included in the apprenticeship framework, then they will not need to be separately certificated. The development of Apprenticeships Standards going forward will be based around practical occupational activities as identified by employees and employers. Other learning or competencies outside the Standards will be supplemented by the wider skills and education system. See Chapter 4 for more information on Standards.
In Switzerland, all apprentices receive 2.5 hours per week of teaching in the official language, communication, civic education (including some applied mathematics) and 45 minutes of physical education (e.g. programme for kitchen employees). This adds up to 120 hours of basic skills education and sport per year, approaching 400 hours over a 3-year apprenticeship.
In Germany, apprentices receive 160 hours of general education per year, and this time is divided among subjects such as German, English, sports, and economics or social science.
In Norway, most apprentices spend the first two years of their apprenticeship in full-time school education before moving to a work placement for the remaining two years of their apprenticeship. During the 2 school-based years apprentices have 588 hours of basic education including Norwegian (or other official language), mathematics, English, science and physical education.
In addition to general education, apprentices in these three countries also receive education and training in occupation-specific subjects during their off-the-job education.
In Australia, the employer-led training packages which define apprenticeships contain a relatively limited amount of general education, and for that reason have been criticised as inadequate.
Source: Field (2020[12]), Strengthening Skills in Scotland, http://www.oecd.org/skills/centre-for-skills/Strengthening_Skills_in_Scotland.pdf
Many European countries impose requirements on the qualifications or skills of in-company trainers, i.e. the individuals in companies who train and support learners during their apprenticeship or other form of work-based learning, before companies are eligible to provide work-based learning (Box 2.11). In Austria, training companies must apply to the local apprenticeship office of the Federal Economic Chamber before they can recruit apprentices. The apprenticeship office, in collaboration with the Chamber of Labour, determines whether the company meets the prerequisites for apprenticeship training such as fulfilling the legal and corporate conditions. These include having a sufficient number of professionally and pedagogically qualified trainers. For example, there must be one part-time trainer available for every 5 apprentices, or a full-time trainer for every 15 apprentices (if a company cannot provide the full complement for an apprenticeship, then it must be part of an alliance of companies). This is based on the recognition of the fact that the success of company-based apprenticeship training is determined by the trainer’s professional competence and pedagogical skills (Cedefop, 2019[10]).
Austria
Workplace trainers must be qualified, through attending a 40-hour course, passing an exam organised by the economic chambers to prove their professional pedagogical skills and legal knowledge, or having a trainer or equivalent qualification. Although a company may accept apprentices even if the intended trainer does not yet have the trainer qualification, the trainer must catch up on the trainer qualification or appoint a person working in the company who has the trainer qualification as the trainer.
The trainer qualification is acquired through a trainer examination or a successfully completed trainer course. The trainer examination is organised by the master’s examination offices of the Chamber of Commerce. Preparatory courses for the trainer examination are offered by the economic development institutes of the Chamber of Commerce (WIFI) and the professional development institutes (bfi). Trainer training courses are offered by WIFI, bfi and other training institutions.
The following specialist knowledge must be proven within the framework of the trainer examination or the technical discussion after the trainer course:
knowledge of the Vocational Training Act (BAG), the Child and Youth Employment Act, employee protection and the position of the dual system in vocational training in Austria.
Many exams can replace the trainer exam. Trainer exams can be as part of the master craftsman's examination or qualification examination or as a separate examination in front of an examination committee.
Source: WKO (2019[65]), In-company trainers, https://www.wko.at/service/bildung-lehre/Ausbilder.html.
The Netherlands
All companies offering work placements (both in apprenticeship and school-based programmes) have to be accredited and the accreditation has to be renewed every four years (ECBO, 2016[66]). One of the criteria for accreditation is the availability of a trained supervisor or tutor. Tutors must be qualified to at least at the same level for which they are supervising work-based learning. Tutors must also be able to share their working expertise with students and be pedagogically competent (validated by diplomas/ certificates). In addition, the company has to offer sufficient training opportunities to allow students to develop the skills and competences prescribed in the curriculum. The company has to agree to co-operate with the VET school and workplace tutors have to contact the school on a regular basis. The work environment has to be safe for VET students.
Source: ECBO (2014[67]), Apprenticeship-Type Schemes and Structured Work-based Learning Programmes The Netherlands, https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2015/ReferNet_NL_2014_WBL.pdf; Smulders et al. (2016[68]), Netherlands: VET in Europe: Country Report 2016, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_NL.pdf.
Estonia
In Estonia, VET teachers are responsible for training in-company trainers. They organise seminars and training courses, and supervise and support in-company trainers. In the past, VET institutions could apply for additional funding to develop training of trainers. The purpose of the training is to raise the quality of supervision during work placements and the efficiency of such training. Courses are 8-40 hours long and participants receive a certificate. They cover preparing, administering and evaluating work practice, and include didactics, supervision and training provision; curriculum objectives and assessment principles; and work practice and supervision for special education needs students (Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia, 2017[69]).
Norway
The Norwegian Directorate for Education offers free resources for apprentice instructors on their website, including short movies showing how instruction can be carried out in practice (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2011[70]).
Switzerland
In Switzerland, trainers at companies providing apprenticeships have to have a special qualification, which is awarded upon attending 100 hours of training in pedagogy, VET law, VET system knowledge, and problem-solving methods for adolescents. VET trainers for intercompany courses have to complete 600 hours of pedagogy preparation and there are also special requirement for examiners (Hoeckel, Field and Grubb, 2009[71]). In addition to formal requirements, Switzerland provides in the QualiCarte a checklist of 28 quality criteria that are used by companies for self-assessment (OECD, 2010[72]).
Enhancements to the quality of apprenticeships
The OECD recommendations in this report to improve the responsiveness of and funding for apprenticeships, need to be supported by the assurance that the apprenticeships on offer are of high quality. This assurance can only be realised through a significant upgrading of minimum expectations on apprenticeship to meet international norms. Scotland should establish minimum requirements for apprenticeship programmes, including the length and mix of on- and off-the-job training. This should include making off-the-job training mandatory in apprenticeships and ensuring that workplace training is supported by quality standards.
Strengthening the capacity of and requirements for in-company trainers. Defining requirements for in-company trainers may encourage investment in the trainer workforce. Additional training to the trainers and supervisors of apprentices may need to be implemented with extra support (e.g., grants for trainers’ training).
Clarifying and increasing minimum requirements for apprenticeships in Scotland could send a clear signal not only in terms of quality, but also of the quantity and form of training involved. Such minimum standards could be established without seriously disrupting a distinctively flexible approach to apprenticeships. In particular, relevant data should be collected to identify the length of different apprenticeships, and what proportion of off-the-job training they include. This information is of policy importance and should be regularly collected.
Considering rebranding apprenticeships to increase their attractiveness. This would further position apprenticeships as a high-quality training pathway. The term “‘Modern Apprenticeships” has been in use since 1994, and by definition they are no longer modern. The name is also unhelpful for those with Scottish apprenticeship qualifications who wish to work in England where the term is no longer used. Given the substantial reforms to Scottish apprenticeship standards and frameworks now under way, and the clarification of the boundaries of apprenticeship as proposed here, it would be timely to consider new names. One option would be to use the term “Scottish apprenticeships”, to also include Graduate and Foundation Apprenticeships, and it appears to already be in use. Given an increasing divergence between the apprenticeship systems of Scotland and those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a signal of the difference would be helpful.
Recommendations and implementation for ensuring that responsiveness and quality go hand in hand
Scotland can enhance the quality of its apprenticeships and strengthen the brand of its apprenticeship system by establishing minimum requirements for the length of programmes, the time to be spent on off-the-job learning, and the competences of in-company trainers.
Conduct a review of what type of general education might reasonably be expected to be included in apprenticeship, including transferable skills and meta-skills, as this bears on the minimum requirements for off-the-job training.
Introduce minimum requirements for programme length and the proportion or absolute amount of off-the-job training, based on a complete understanding of what proportion of programmes will be affected. Apprenticeships that fall below these requirements should be assessed to establish whether those programmes are likely to be maintained. For those that are not, there should be an assessment of whether the training involved is desirable and useful, and if it should be supported in some other way as useful non-apprenticeship training.
Define minimum requirements for in-company trainers to ensure quality provision of work-based learning. Based on those requirements, Scotland should provide necessary training for those who do not meet such requirements or encourage employers to invest in such training. This can be linked to the development of a higher-level qualification such as mastercraftsperson, as recommended in Section 4.3.
Rename the entire apprenticeship family “Scottish Apprenticeships”. The aim would be to use this as the standard term in official documentation – and this appears to already be in use – and to develop easier pathways between the different work-based learning options. The different levels of apprenticeship should primarily be distinguished in relation to SCQF levels, although there is no reason why the term Graduate Apprenticeship should not be retained.
References
[28] Andersen, O. and K. Kruse (2016), “Vocational education and training in Europe – Denmark.”, Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports;, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/country-reports/denmark-vet-europe-country-report-2016.
[52] Auditor General for Scotland (2014), Modern Apprenticeships, https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2014/nr_140313_modern_apprenticeships.pdf.
[40] Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2013), Cabinet Implementation Unit Toolkit: 3. Engaging Stakeholders, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/2014%2011%2014-%201%20Planning%20-%20Final.rtf (accessed on 14 February 2020).
[9] BIBB (2021), Datenreport 2021, BIBB, https://www.bibb.de/datenreport/de/datenreport_2021.php.
[24] Bøndergaard, G. (2014), The historical emergence of the key challenges for the future of VET in Denmark,, http://nord-vet.dk/indhold/uploads/report1a_dk.pdf.
[55] Brunello, G. (2009), The Effect of Economic Downturns on Apprenticeships and Initial Workplace Training: A Review of the Evidence, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/43141035.pdf.
[1] BSI (2020), Supporting the development of Apprenticeships in Scotland: Review of the Apprenticeship Governance System, British Standard Institution and Skills Development Scotland.
[17] Cedefop (2021), The Vienna training alliance model – Aid for companies in the Covid-19 crisis, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news-and-press/news/vienna-training-alliance-model-aid-companies-covid-19-crisis?src=email&freq=weekly.
[10] Cedefop (2019), Cedefop European database on apprenticeship schemes, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-visualisations/apprenticeship-schemes/country-fiches.
[26] Cedefop (2016), Governance and financing of apprenticeships., Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop research paper; No 53., https://doi.org/10.2801/201055.
[20] Chankseliani, M. and A. Anuar (2019), “Cross-country comparison of engagement in apprenticeships: A conceptual analysis of incentives for individuals and firms”, International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 6/3, pp. 261-283, https://doi.org/10.13152/ijrvet.6.3.4.
[48] CITB (2021), CITB Training Group Consultation 2020/21, https://www.citb.co.uk/media/pxgftvvb/training-group-consultation-2021-1.pdf.
[43] DEG (2021), Corporate apprenticeship coverage and recruitment approaches [Virksomheders lærlingedækning og rekrutteringstilgange], https://deg.dk/sites/deg.dk/files/media/document/Virksomheders%20l%C3%A6rlinged%C3%A6kning%20og%20rekrutteringstilgang%20%28021121%20-%20endeligt%20produkt%29.pdf.
[32] EAfA (2021), Apprenticeships coalition survey by European Alliance for Apprenticeships, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9991&langId=en.
[66] ECBO (2016), VET in the Netherlands, Cedefop, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4142_en.pdf.
[67] ECBO (2014), Apprenticeship-Type Schemes and Structured Work-based Learning Programmes The Netherlands,, https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2015/ReferNet_NL_2014_WBL.pdf.
[47] ESSB (2020), Report by the Enterprise & Skills Strategic Board sub-group on Measures to Mitigate the Labour Market Impacts from COVID-19, https://www.gov.scot/publications/report-enterprise-skills-strategic-board-sub-group-measures-mitigate-labour-market-impacts-covid-19/documents/.
[14] Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (2017), Background Report for OECD on Vocational Education and Training, http://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/uuringud/oecd_vet_background.pdf.
[41] Eurostat (2021), Eurostat database, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
[45] Eurostat (2015), Eurostat CVTS 2015, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/continuing-vocational-training-survey.
[34] Fazekas, M. and S. Field (2013), A Skills beyond School Review of Switzerland, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264062665-en.
[12] Field, S. (2020), Strengthening Skills in Scotland, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/skills/centre-for-skills/Strengthening_Skills_in_Scotland.pdf.
[7] gfs.bern (2021), Baromètre des transitions, août 2021 – Rapport de synthèse, https://cockpit.gfsbern.ch/fr/cockpit/nahtstellenbarometer-2021-august-2/.
[8] gfs.bern (2020), Baromètre des transitions 2020, https://cockpit.gfsbern.ch/fr/cockpit/nahtstellenbarometer-2020-3-2/.
[71] Hoeckel, K., S. Field and W. Grubb (2009), OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training: A Learning for Jobs Review of Switzerland 2009, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113985-en.
[6] IFF Research (2020), Employer Skills Survey 2019: Apprenticeships and Traineeships, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936491/ESS_2019_Apprenticeships_Thematic_Report_Nov20.pdf.
[4] IFF Research (2019), Scottish Employer Perspectives Survey 2019, https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-employer-perspectives-survey-eps-2019-research-report/pages/9/.
[33] IHK (2021), Ausbildung, https://www.ihk.de/themen/ausbildung.
[50] ILO (2020), ILO Toolkit for Quality Apprenticeships. Volume 2 Guide for Practitioners: Innovations and strategies in apprenticeships, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_751118.pdf.
[61] Inter-agency Group on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (2018), Investing in work-based learning, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260677.
[25] KRIVET (2019), Apprenticeship in Korea, https://www.krivet.re.kr/eng/eu/zc/euZ_prB.jsp?gn=E1%7CE120200898%7C0%7C3.
[15] Kuczera, M. (2017), “Incentives for apprenticeship”, OECD Education Working Papers, Vol. 152, https://doi.org/10.1787/55bb556d-en.
[57] Kuczera, M. (2017), “Striking the right balance: Costs and benefits of apprenticeship”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 153, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/995fff01-en.
[29] Kuczera, M. and S. Jeon (2019), Vocational Education and Training in Sweden, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9fac5-en.
[16] Kurt, S. (2019), Companies Engaging in Dual VET: Do Financial Incentives Matter?, https://www.dcdualvet.org/wp-content/uploads/DC-dVET_Discussion-Note-Financial-Incentives.pdf.
[35] Michelsen, S. et al. (2021), “Training agencies as intermediary organisations in apprentice training in Norway and Switzerland: general purpose or niche production tools?”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1904437.
[69] Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia (2017), Background Report for OECD on Vocational Education and Training.
[18] Musset, P. (2019), “Improving work-based learning in schools”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 233, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/918caba5-en.
[62] National Skills Academy for Food and Drink (2021), https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/45198/ma-framework-food-and-drink-operations-at-scqf-level-6.pdf, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/45198/ma-framework-food-and-drink-operations-at-scqf-level-6.pdf.
[59] Northern Ireland Government (2017), ApprenticeshipsNI 2017 Operational Requirements, https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/publications/apprenticeship-guidelines.
[70] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2011), Etterutdanningsmateriell for Fag- Og Yrkesopplæring, http://www.udir.no/Utvikling/Etterutdanningsmateriell_FY/ (accessed on 10 July 2020).
[56] OECD (2021), Teachers and Leaders in Vocational Education and Training, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59d4fbb1-en.
[64] OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
[36] OECD (2019), Negotiating Our Way Up: Collective Bargaining in a Changing World of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1fd2da34-en.
[13] OECD (2018), Seven Questions about Apprenticeships: Answers from International Experience, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training,, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306486-en.
[44] OECD (2017), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279889-en.
[63] OECD (2014), G20-OECD-EC Conference on Quality Apprenticeship. Country information on apprenticeship, https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Youth%20questionnaire%20country%20responses-Compilation1.pdf.
[11] OECD (2014), Skills beyond School: Synthesis Report, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214682-en.
[72] OECD (2010), Learning for Jobs, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087460-en.
[38] OECD/ILO (2017), Engaging Employers in Apprenticeship Opportunities: Making It Happen Locally, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266681-en.
[5] Open University (2020), Business Barometer 2020, https://www.open.ac.uk/business/barometer-2020.
[19] Pfeifer, H. (2016), Firms’ motivation for training apprentices: An Australian-German comparison., Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research., https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/60138/Firms-motivation-for-training-apprentices.pdf.
[49] Poulsen, S. and C. Eberhardt (2016), Approaching Apprenticeship Systems from a European Perspective, BIBB, https://www.bibb.de/dienst/veroeffentlichungen/en/publication/show/7987.
[60] Powell, A. (2019), Apprenticeships and Skills Policy in England, House of Commons, https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03052#fullreport.
[21] Ryan, P. (2000), “The Institutional Requirements Of Apprenticeship: Evidence From Smaller EU Countries”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 4/1, pp. 42-65, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00095.
[3] SAAB (2019), Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board’s Definition of an Apprenticeship. Recommendations to the Minister, Skills Development Scotland, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/45991/scottish-apprenticeship-advisory-boards-definition-of-an-apprenticeship.docx.
[2] Scottish Government (2017), Enterprise and Skills Review: Report on Phase 2: Skills Alignment, https://www.gov.scot/publications/enterprise-skills-review-report-phase-2/.
[22] Scottish Government (2014), Education working for all: developing Scotland’s young workforce, https://www.gov.scot/publications/education-working-commission-developing-scotlands-young-workforce-final-report/documents/.
[51] SDS (2022), Modern Apprenticeship Programme Specification 2021-2022 (As extended to 31st March 2023).
[54] SDS (2021), Modern Apprenticeship Contribution Table 2021-22, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48180/2021-22-appendix-1-ma-contribution-table-010921.pdf.
[53] SDS (2021), quality assurance and improvement framework, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/45243/qualityassuranceplusimprovementframeworkarrangements21-22.pdf.
[27] SDS (2021), Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board Structure and Remit, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48448/saab-structure-and-remit-november-2021.pdf.
[58] SDS (2020), Apprenticeship Employer Survey 2020, https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/48770/aes-2020-report-final-v1.pdf.
[37] SFC (2021), Coherence and sustainability: a review of tertiary education and research, http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Review/coherence-and-sustainability.pdf.
[31] Smulders, H., A. Cox and A. Westerhuis (2016), Netherlands: VET in Europe: country report 2016, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_NL.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2018).
[68] Smulders, H., A. Cox and A. Westerhuis (2016), Netherlands: VET in Europe: Country Report 2016, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_NL.pdf.
[46] Steedman, H. (2015), Promoting safe work and quality apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises: Challenges for developed and developing economies, International Labour Office, Geneva.
[23] Swiss Confederation (2021), Federal Act on Vocational and Professional Education and Training, https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2003/674/en.
[42] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020), Distribution of private sector firms by size class, https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_g.txt.
[39] UK DBEIS (2020), Business population estimates 2020, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/business-population-estimates-2020.
[30] Undervisnings Minsteriet (2018), Om Rådet for de grundlæggende Erhvervsrettede Uddannelser - Undervisningsministeriet, https://uvm.dk/erhvervsuddannelser/ansvar-og-aktoerer/raad-og-udvalg/reu/om-reu (accessed on 29 August 2018).
[65] WKO (2019), In-company trainers, https://www.wko.at/service/bildung-lehre/Ausbilder.html.
Notes
← 1. Three legal documents (Berufsbildungsgesetz, Handwerksordnung and Jugendarbeitsschutzgesetz) administer the eligibility of employers and training companies to offer vocational training. Under these laws, over half of German employers are eligible to offer apprenticeships. Since 2000, around 50% of eligible employers have participated in the vocational education system. The participation rate of eligible employers is positively correlated with the size of the workforce of the enterprise (OECD/ILO, 2017[38]).
← 2. Adopt an Apprentice payments go to employers taking on an apprentice who has been made redundant by another employer. In 2020 the payments were increased from GBP 2 000 to GBP 5 000. Access to work payments support the additional costs of taking on an employee with a disability, and this covers apprentices as well as other employees.
← 3. With a network of 30 local Chambers of Commerce, SCC represents more than 12 000 companies and over 50% of Scotland’s private sector workforce.
← 4. CBI is a UK business organisation. It promotes business interests by lobbying and advising governments, networking with other businesses and creating intelligence through analysis of government policies and compilation of statistics.
← 5. Around 50 national trade committees (faglige udvalg) are responsible for 106 upper secondary VET programmes. These are composed of, and funded by, employer and employee organisations. Trade committees update existing courses and propose new ones; define learning objectives and final examination standards; decide the duration of the programme and the ratio between college-based teaching and practical work in an enterprise; approve enterprises as qualified training establishments and rule on conflicts which may develop between apprentices and the enterprise providing practical training; and issue journeyman’s certificates in terms of content, assessment and the actual holding of examinations (Andersen and Kruse, 2016[28]).
← 6. For example, the apprenticeship employer toolkit developed by SDS and Lantra Scotland in the land-based, aquaculture and environmental sector provides employers with guidance and support needed when offering apprenticeships, which could be scaled up to be used in other sectors (see for example, the “Rural Employers’ Toolkit”).