This autumn, Edge and Skills Development Scotland (SDS) have joined forces to deliver three impact-focused workshops exploring apprenticeship systems across the UK. In September, our first workshop took a big-picture view of the current trends impacting the labour market. It tackled pressing issues, from the growing importance of metaskills to the targeted delivery of skills and micro-credentials.
On 12th October, our second workshop welcomed Heta Rintala, Principal Research Scientist from Häme University of Applied Sciences. She shared her experiences of the Finnish apprenticeship system. Meanwhile, Lewis Cooper, Director of the Independent Commission on the College of the Future and the Four Nations College Alliance, explored what we can learn from apprenticeship systems around the UK.
Best practice from the Finnish system
While Finland’s VET system has long been competency-based, in 2018, it underwent significant reforms to embed this approach via individualised study pathways. Aimed at creating greater flexibility, learners now rely on personal competence development plans devised in partnership with their training provider. Plans outline an individual’s competency needs and how they will achieve them.
In practice, this means Finnish apprenticeships aren't firmly defined in terms of timeframe or work environment. Instead, Finland’s National Qualification Criteria helps determine the best approach to delivering each pathway. The solution might include a partial qualification or qualifications, delivered through work-based learning, a formal apprenticeship, schooling or other forms of training. This modular approach adds flexibility to the Finnish skills system, which now offers more apprenticeship programmes of a shorter duration (usually between 1 and 3 months).
While Finland’s new model helps meet the needs of individuals, employers and society at large, the autonomy of VET providers has also highlighted some varying practices that hinder nationwide information measures related to apprenticeships. Nevertheless, there is much to consider here.
Apprenticeships across the four nations
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland share common aspirations regarding their apprenticeship systems. Firstly, all are moving towards a more integrated approach to post-16 education and skills. Second, they have a mutual ambition to promote lifelong learning. Thirdly, all recognise the need to strengthen strategic relationships with employers. Finally, all are reviewing the relationships between key agencies involved with the delivery of apprenticeships. Considering these shared goals, is there an argument for an integrated four nations approach to apprenticeship policy?
On the flip side, there are some interesting distinctions between the four nations’ policies, too. For instance, mandatory end-point assessment is a key feature of England’s standards-based system. This differs from the competency-based models used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. While a standards-based model arguably promotes better employer leadership, end-point assessment is costly. How can we evaluate the effectiveness of end-point assessments?
Similarly, the approach to the apprenticeship levy differs between England and the other three nations. In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, levy funding is paid to, and directly managed by, government agencies. In England, however, employers access the levy funding directly. This may create a perception that the system is working for, rather than with, employers, encouraging them to devolve responsibility for skills to training providers. Again, plenty to think about.
As we reform apprenticeships, what issues need further exploration?
Using Lewis and Heta’s insights as a jumping-off point, our breakout sessions examined the issues in depth. The discussion was wide-ranging. For instance, is England’s employer-led standards system a prime example of employer leadership? Or does it place too much power in employer hands. And while a standards-based model tends to favour larger employers, could a more modular approach (as in Finland) support smaller employers to engage with the system?
Another question concerned the purpose of apprenticeships and who they are for. Should they be aimed at reskilling older employees (as in Finland) or upskilling young people? This highlights a common division between employer need and public policy need. How can we design a system that satisfies both? Indeed, should we? Apprenticeships need not be everything to everyone, but their objectives need to be defined.
Finally, there was a discussion about flexibility versus stability. Constant policy churn can be well-intentioned but often causes the system to feel unstable and complex. Would enhanced stability allow new initiatives to mature? Or should a more flexible approach take priority in these disruptive times? Ideally, we will be able to find a balance between the two.
In November, Edge and SDS’s final workshop will be an action-focused discussion seeking practical answers to these questions. Exploring the implication of any changes on policymakers, employers and learners, we look forward to sharing these insights with you.