Dave Gardner

Half the young people in Britain do not intend to go to university. Many of those who do, feel that they have no choice, even if they don’t particularly wish to. But what other choices do they have? This is where choices for young people become problematic. The main educational destination is a further education college (FEC) which, although they do a great job with the resources available, are acutely underfunded and the qualifications that they offer leave a lot to be desired, largely thanks to ‘reforms’ made to the qualification system under the Blair Government of 2001-2007. Apprenticeships in Germany are available to around 45% of young people but in England the figure is nearer 6%. Young people who wish to start their working life through enrolling on an apprenticeship face an uphill struggle to get one. To get a high quality one is even more of a struggle. What should be a secure and reliable route into adult life is in fact a path fraught with perils. Why is this so?

What is apprenticeship?

Apprenticeship is probably as old as the human race. A young person learns to master an occupation alongside an experienced practitioner, gradually taking on more responsibility until expertise is achieved. The young person is a junior employee who both works and learns. The better they work, the more they earn. Apprenticeship was typically of long duration, around seven years.  This was the time that it was thought was needed to become a truly competent worker. This was fine as a way of organising apprenticeship for traditional crafts and artisanal activities. But as the industrial revolution got underway there was an increasing need for formal instruction in the science and technology underlying work processes so that the worker could apply knowledge gained from science to the work process. Concern in Germany among the ruling class about the revolutionary potential of the organised working class also prompted, alongside formal technical instruction, the introduction of civic education to blunt possible revolutionary ardour.

Apprenticeship in Britain has also moved from the artisanal time serving model to one that includes technical instruction. But the UK has always resisted the development of a mass regulated apprenticeship system with defined standards enforced through social partnership arrangements as is the case in Germany in the now dominant Dual System in which formal study and workplace learning are combined. Neither is it particularly keen on broad well-defined occupations with currency in an occupational labour market, which give workers a kind of property in their labour.

 Labour’s Legacy and Tory Reforms

By the early 1990s concern about the decline of apprenticeship, in part relating to the decline or disappearance of industrial sectors of the economy led to an attempt by the Tories to revive apprenticeship in a partial and weak imitation of the German Dual System. An attempt during the 1980s to develop purely work-based qualifications failed to address the need for knowledge in effective working practice in skilled occupations and it was acknowledged that something more was needed. Thus were born Modern Apprenticeships. Labour’s contribution post 1997 was to undermine the very idea of apprenticeship while keeping the name for political reasons. Apprenticeship was thus extended to include short phase training, training for semi-skilled occupations and adult retraining. This allowed Labour to claim fraudulently that they were presiding over a revival of apprenticeship while in fact presiding over its continuing decline. The introduction of an Apprenticeship Framework in 2009 which was so loose as to be almost meaningless completed the picture of Labour’s debauching of what was left of apprenticeship.

Apprenticeship governance

When the Tories took power again in 2010, it looked as if the decline of vocational education under Labour might be halted. Various reports recommended the revival of apprenticeship as a genuine high quality route to a skilled occupation  and the government in 2017 introduced what looked like an improved model of apprenticeship based on standards constructed by employers. Off the job learning, minimum length (normally two years) and a set of work-related occupational standards were to be introduced for each apprenticeship qualification. In order to encourage employers to offer more apprenticeships a 0.5% payroll levy on larger employers was introduced. Monies raised by the levy could be recouped by offering various forms of vocational education leading to a recognised qualification. The system was to be overseen by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Ifate).

It is important to recognise that Ifate is a government body with little autonomy and no real power to enforce the regulations for apprenticeship that it is tasked with upholding. Although the standards for apprenticeships that were introduced by the Tories were an improvement on previous bad practice, they are in no way comparable to apprenticeship in countries like Germany, Belgium or Switzerland, even on paper. In reality however they are far, far worse.

Rules, Gaming and The Enforcement of Rules.

There are conflicting forces at work within the government in relation to vocational education. On the one hand there is a recognition that it needs to be of high quality if Britain is to increase its productivity. On the other hand there is a visceral dislike, both of regulation and of interfering with employer prerogatives. The result has been that there is a widespread practice of gaming the regulations governing the training levy so that relatively little of it is used for developing young people rather than providing management courses for relatively senior employees.

Even worse, however, is the fact that the weak regulations that govern apprenticeship are not enforced. Ifate does not have the power to do so and there is no apparent inclination to set limits on how employers interpret the apprenticeship regulations. Thus, there is widespread evidence that very often the off the job training essential to occupational expertise is not provided, that the apprenticeship specifications are often for semi-skilled rather than skilled work and that they do not satisfy minimum standards of length nor is there even any meaningful attempt at instruction within the workplace.

There are firms that offer good apprenticeships, particularly in sectors where there has been a long tradition of high-quality apprenticeships. Firms such as BT, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce would all be examples. Competition to obtain these apprenticeships is very fierce because of their scarcity. Such firms expect much of their future senior management to come through this route.  Some companies also see apprenticeship as a moral commitment to the next generation. All too often however, the business strategy of many companies is to rely on semi-skilled or unskilled labour and for them apprenticeship in the form envisaged by the government, let alone German style Dual System apprenticeship is irrelevant. Such companies are happy to take the money and not to provide something worthwhile for young people who sign up for an apprenticeship in good faith and are then short-changed.

What a working class party should do.

If trade unions had a role in running the vocational education and training system they would be able, as do German unions, to enforce quality standards. But the unions in Britain have no such role, neither do they have a great interest in claiming it. This is a missed opportunity. Young people entering the workforce are future trade unionists. A young person who enrols on a substandard apprenticeship is being cheated out of the chance to work in a worthwhile occupation. Trade unions that fought to ensure that young people were not cheated out of their birthright in the workplace are likely to gain committed recruits as well as ensuring good vocational education. It is an opportunity that they should not miss. Likewise, a political party that took young people’s aspirations seriously and fought for their rights is also likely to gain adherents as well as gratitude. The Labour Party is completely incapable of doing this. Who will?

Comments on Dave Gardner’s Article,

By Arthur Wacker and Sara Hussein, from the Workers Party of Britain

A working class party should address the dilemma that young people face when considering their futures. We could suggest something innovatory in addressing alternative and more promising pathways for young people post-16 and post-18 that accord themselves to their interests and goals. A party with the interests of the working class at heart could of course totally reform and transform the current apprenticeship model, learning from countries such as Germany as well as reviving the classical conception of what an apprenticeship should entail – years of training, gaining full-skills rather than semi-skills, not at the profit of a corporation, but at the benefit of the apprentice first, and also the master – whilst in doing so, building a modern, advanced and attractive apprenticeship/post-16/18 skills-based educational scheme for young people. A new and strong apprenticeship scheme also means young people won’t be strung up by, or beholden to, the debts of university. Young people are deeply anxious and upset over the fact they are plunged into debt through university, as well as the inability to afford good accommodation. Alternatively, a system where apprenticeships and vocational training offer a free pathway to a career in which a fulfilling, comprehensive skill is acquired, and a well-paying career is pursued, is going to be naturally attractive to young working people.

We both believe a working-class party challenging the over-emphasis and reliance of university education is important. We know most people don’t really want to be, or should be at university, yet young people still feel as if it’s not only their only choice, but their best choice, when it comes to making a good income. This stereotype is sadly accurate, and therefore, it needs to be challenged. These reformed and transformed apprenticeship schemes need to aim at introducing and integrating young people into the new economy a working-class party hopes to cultivate, where skilled, technical jobs that feel dignified and fulfilling, are also well paid, through being highly regarded and respected across society. In this respect, apprenticeships are part of a greater socialist picture, giving an attractive and compelling representation of working-class jobs for young people, making their professions as highly paid, regarded and respected as post-university jobs, and importantly, they also have leeway for upwards-mobility, reversing and opposing the way in which New Labour and Tory administrations placed emphasis on anti-working-class jobs being some sort of “virtue.” By proving itself through policy and action, a working-class party will defy this modern Blairite status quo. Simply put, young people need to know they have equality of opportunity, and in terms of dignity, equality of outcome too.

Additionally, providing trade schooling and economic schooling through young peoples’ mainstream education as part of the school curriculum would help young people be wiser with their money in the future, which would be part of a greater amendment project pertaining to their worries and concerns about the security of their futures. In this security, young people will feel more comfortable and confident in pursuing the skills and jobs they want to have, as well as, if it is in their interests, starting their own businesses. Young people in rural communities tend to be unrepresented in this area: their interests in starting their own businesses or having a place to truly monetise and cultivate their own physical labour skills, often get shunned into mainstream bourgeois education that tries to direct them toward a university degree.

Finally, a working-class party, whose sole aim is to engage with transforming the apprenticeship system beyond what unions are interested in aiming for, needs to be the guiding force for young people. Young people are missing a role model in wider society nowadays, that being the promise they are not only cared for and looked after in their pursuits, that their interests are being represented, but that they shall be assisted in fulfilling these pursuits. In this framework, the party should listen to young people – unlike telling young people what is best for them like New Labour did – but also guide young people in a respectful, mature, and mutualist manner, being both a listener and a mentor.