Tag Archives: apprenticeships

Time to stand up to HM Treasury

Posted on by
Reply

The news that postgraduate apprenticeships for teachers are to  be reduced to nine months in length Red tape slashed to get more teachers into classrooms – GOV.UK and aligned with the school-year, effectively returns school-based training possibilities to where they were two decades ago when the previous employment-based GTTP Scheme was flourishing.

The fact that the government is offering schools up to £28,000 to cover the cost of training apprentices in mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, computing, and modern foreign languages – the subjects which have the highest teacher shortages – if they take on an apprentice is something of a mixed blessing.

Could we see some applicants ditching higher education courses for a salary and presumably pension and NI contributions as a better bet than a scholarship, especially as once one has a foot in the door, the school is likely to want keep them after the end of the apprenticeship, if they prove successful.

This announcement form the DfE means apprentices pay nothing for their training and will earn a salary while they are training before moving on to full time teacher pay salary. If the salary is better than the scholarship, even without the additional benefits, might some be tempted to move if they become aware of this new route, especially if the school is nearer their home.

The advantage of an employment-based routes has always been their flexibility to offer career changers training near where they live, rather than at a university or SCITT that may be some distance away from their homes.

Of course, there needs to be applicants wanting to start teaching in these subjects, and I believe the current uncertain economic situation will help create the environment for the necessary increase in applications.

Where does this leave those training on other routes without a salary and with student debt around their neck? As they also have no certainty of a job at the end of their training, it appears a poor bet in a time when schools are complaining of under-funding and making staff redundant. Why take the risk of an intensive year of study with no guarantee of a job at the end?

This is why I think the Secretary of State must stand up to HM Treasury, and once again offer the free training for all that was withdrawn by the coalition government in 2010 in a really short-sighted move. Not to do so, could destabilise the whole teacher preparation market, if not in 2025 then certainly in 2026.

I have repeatedly said that the presence of two trainees in adjacent classrooms, one on a salary and the other paying for the privilege of their training, was plainly wrong. This new move on apprenticeships makes it both absurd as well as wrong.

Perhaps the government could offer free training for all as part of the pay bargaining this year with the professional associations. After all, HM Treasury knows that falling rolls will see the schooling budget on a downward trajectory over the next few years, especially as the decline in rolls is greatest in London, the highest cost area in terms of government funding of schooling.

The new on apprenticeships is not a gift horse one should ignore, but one to use as a basis for putting all graduate teacher preparation courses on the same financial footing for those seeking to become a teacher. Not to do so will have consequences.

Bring back King’s Scholarships?

Posted on by
1

In 1846, the government solved the problem of providing enough teachers for the growing school population by allowing the creation of pupil-teachers, partly based upon the model in use by the army for their schoolteacher sergeants. After an apprenticeship in a school, starting at age 13, successful pupil teachers were encouraged to compete for Queen’s Scholarships to allow them to progress to a training centre or college for further instruction and learning.

Fast forward 177 years, and there are rumours in the press of the re-establishment of this route for school-leavers that would be willing to receive instruction in schools to become teachers of shortage subjects while learning ‘on the job’. The scheme would avoid the students having to take out loans to pay the fees of higher education institutions for degree courses, and presumably would provide a modest income as well.

This is a further example of the pendulum swinging away from teacher preparation that is external to a school, a swing back that started in the 1990s, and always seems to attract government interest in periods of teacher shortage, and tracking back to school-based preparation. To date, schemes such as the Graduate and Registered Teacher Training programmes of the Labour government, and the School Direct Salaried and Fee schemes of the present government have been aimed at either career changing graduates or at least those with a degree. This has been in line with the decline in undergraduate courses that for the past fifty years have only flourished in a few secondary curriculum subjects, such as physical education and design and technology: even these have dwindled over the past few years since fees were introduced by the Labour government.

So, would a modern apprenticeship scheme for school-leavers to learn to become mathematics, computing or even physics teachers work? I hope the government has done some market research before announcing any such scheme. If not, it could follow the path of the Fast Track Scheme and various attempts to place middle and senior leaders into challenging schools, all of which were projects that either didn’t proceed beyond the stage of a trial or lasted only a few years.

The first question for anyone considering introducing an apprenticeship scheme is what sort of schools are finding recruitment challenging? I wrote a blog about this in July Free School Meals and teacher vacancies | John Howson (wordpress.com) Successful schools in areas where teachers want to work probably see a high percentage of their sixth form depart for university courses at eighteen. Will some studying these subjects want to stay at the school to become a teacher? Are these the schools experiencing teacher shortages?

Will schools with high staff turnover and sometimes with challenging ofsted grades be allowed to train apprentice teachers, even if these are the schools facing the most difficulty recruiting staff in these subjects? That is a key question. If eighteen-year-olds have to move to another school to become an apprentice will the be willing to do so?

Schools will need to be funded properly to take up the scheme. The decline in the use of the School Direct Salaried Scheme, as the central funding was reduced, illustrates the problem. Schools are funded to teach pupils and not to train teachers, even if there is a shortage. Supplying teachers is seen as the job of government.

I have no doubt that some academy chains and even possibly some dioceses might be persuaded to take up an apprenticeship scheme for teachers. Using the apprenticeship levy raised from primary schools to pay for training secondary school teachers won’t, I suspect, go down well in some quarters.  

Then there is the question of subject knowledge development if an apprentice is to be able to teach anything beyond Key Stage 3; who would want to become a teacher with a qualification devoid of subject knowledge up to graduate level. Of course, the schools could enrol the apprentices in distance learning degree courses, but that costs money. They could even expect the apprentice to pay for their own subject knowledge development to degree level. We won’t know until the Secretary of State reveals the plans for any scheme which approach might be favoured.

As this is August, this might be regarded as a ‘silly season’ story were it not for the fact that current schemes for attracting graduates to become teachers have failed, and the government obviously needs to try something different.

Will it work? If the teacher associations refuse to take part, then it won’t, but it would allow the government to say that teachers sabotage a solution to the teacher shortage crisis.

Will school-leavers want to sign up? A level students in the shortage subjects suggested can often earn more than teachers, even with modest degrees from non-Russel Group universities or by leaving school and starting work, so any apprenticeship scheme would need to be sufficiently enticing to attract applicants other than those that couldn’t find either a university place or a job opportunity.

So, please Secretary of State do some market research before announcing any scheme in order to convince everyone that there is a viable and continuing cohort of potential trainees for any apprenticeship scheme.

First look at 2023 ITT applications

Posted on by
2

How content should the government be about the first release of data showing applications for graduate teacher training courses starting in autumn 2023? Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2023 to 2024 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK (apply-for-teacher-training.service.gov.uk) On the face of it, there must be gratification that mostly the numbers are going in the right direction, especially after the disastrous November 2021 data.

Indeed, there are nuggets of good news buried within the tables that regular watchers will discern. The sciences are doing better than last autumn, in terms of applications, as are shortage subjects such as design and technology and business studies. However, all this are relative, and the ‘better’ isn’t on a trajectory to make much of a dent in the shortfalls recorded in the recent ITT census of current trainee numbers; commented upon in three posts on this blog.

Overall, candidate numbers at the November count, are up from 8,831 in November 2021, to 9,557 this year. But, in the vital London and Home Counties regions of the East of England and the South East, candidate numbers are down slightly. This will be set of data to watch. Perhaps, more interesting is the contribution from candidates apply and classified as ‘Rest of the world’. Here candidate numbers are up from 589 to 1,209: more than double last November’s number.

The increase in candidate numbers is stronger among the older age groups and weakest among those of age 23; the only grouping to record a decline from last year’s number for November. As young graduates are the backbone of new entrants, the age profile of candidates will need watching carefully and, if necessary, the marketing mix adjusting to encourage more new graduates from the London area to consider teaching as a career.

Interestingly, applications from men to train as a teacher increased faster than those from women when compared with November 2021 data. Largely gone are the days of providers receiving a wall of applications for primary courses as soon as the recruitment cycle opens. Happy those still favoured with being able to make all their offers for these courses before the festive season and winter break.

Higher educations institutions seem to have borne the brunt of increase in applications. Perhaps affected by the increase in applications for those labelled as ‘Rest of the world’ candidates? Changes in applications for the other routes are too small to make any judgement, but will need watching carefully.

The government is unlikely to be too perturbed by the small decline in applications for primary phase courses, balanced as it is by the increase in applications for secondary courses. Offers in both mathematics and physics are at their highest November levels since recent records began to be collected for that month in the 20106/17 recruitment cycle.

One swallow does not a summer make, as the saying goes, but these numbers can allow the government to produce some positive headlines. Whether they will be justified in view of the big increase in candidates with the designation as from ‘Rest of the world’ is something that will need careful watching. However, it could have been worse; but not much.

At these levels there is a lot of work to do to make the 2024 labour market anything like a comfortable proposition. 2023 will, of course, be a real challenge for school needing to recruit teachers in many different curriculum areas.

Has DfE policy already affected ITT outcomes?

Posted on by
Reply

The repercussions of the re-accreditation process for ITT are already reverberating around the teacher preparation world. The DfE may possibly be embarking on the most radical realignment of providers since the cull of institutions in the 1970s. As then, the end of a growth in pupil numbers meant the demand for new teachers will reduce going forward, especially if the traditional assumptions on the scale of demand remain true.

This is not the place to discuss both the effect of mass tutoring and the creation of teaching as a global profession on the demand for teachers by schools in England. Those issues have already been rehearsed previously on this blog.

This post looks at the monthly ITT data on applications published by the DfE yesterday, and containing data up to the 16th May. The headline news is that applications continue to be depressed. In some subjects they are well below the boost that the pandemic provided last year.

Even more alarming is the fact that in many secondary subjects ‘offers’ and recruited trainees for September are at their lowest May levels for more than a decade. For instance, physics has just 337 in the offer categories. However, a further 243 applications are under consideration. In computing the 244 offers is a record low for May, and there are only 219 applications awaiting a decision, and around two thirds of the total applications are shown as unsuccessful.

The ‘offer’ side of the equation seems lower than in past years for this point in the cycle. Have providers reacted to a combination of late targets – not announced until April, rather than at the start of the cycle – the uncertainty surrounding the re-accreditation process, and the return of Ofsted to be much more cautious about offers than in the past?

Take a subject such as music, where one would assume that a music degree and proficiency in at least one instrument were a likely ‘given’ for applicants. However, even here, 478 of the 773 applications are show as unsuccessful. Now, I assume this includes successful applicants that have opted for one provider and are no longer holding offers at other providers, but that would mean a maximum of 295 potential trainees.

Overall candidate numbers are down from 34,490 in May 2021 to 28,977 this May. That’s below the 30,610 of May 2020. As one might expect at this time of year, the decline in career changers has had more impact than the decline in this year’s graduates, although even the numbers of applicants under 23 that are mostly new graduates, are down on last year, although holding up well compared with 2020. How this group reacts once degrees are awarded will be very important for the outcome of this year’s recruitment round. Will they look to teaching as a safe haven in uncertain times or will they be lured by the tight labour market into ignoring teaching as an option?

The regional spread of candidates is worrying, with London seeing fewer than 5,000 candidates across both primary and secondary phases compared with around 5,500 even in 2020, and 6,800 in May last year. Even in the North East, candidate numbers are fewer than 1,100 compared with 1,500 in 2020 and 1,450 last May.  Apart from the teaching apprenticeship route, all other routes into teaching are suffering downturns.

Unless the economy collapses over the next couple of months, this year’s ITT targets will be widely missed, except in history and physical education. Even in these subjects the over-recruitment may well be less than in recent times, meaning an even tighter a labour market for September 2023 and January 2024, unless there is an influx or returners to make up the shortfall.

What remains certain is that without enough teachers the aims of the recent White Paper cannot be met. Perhaps that’s why teachers receive scant mention in the new Schools Bill currently before parliament.

Taxing our schools

Posted on by
Reply

What started out as a ‘good idea’ has now become a tax on schools, and especially primary schools: at least in Oxfordshire. The apprenticeship Levy doesn’t seem to work as intended, as the following information provided by the Council to a Lib Dem question clearly shows.

The Apprenticeship Levy started in May 2017.

The levy is funded via a monthly charge against our payroll bill of 0.5%. This equates to approximately £100k a month. The money charged to our payroll is put into an OCC digital apprenticeship account and is drawn down by apprenticeship training providers on a monthly basis. For example, if 1 apprenticeship costs £4,800 and has a duration of 2 years, the provider will draw down £200 a month for 24 months.

Each month’s levy is treated as a separate pot of money with the oldest pot of funding being used first.   The first allocation of £100k (May 2017) was used to pay providers until it was exhausted. For example, if our total training bill was £10k a month, it would take 10 months to use the first month’s levy. In the meantime, we would have accrued a further £900k over the following months which would not have been spent as there was sufficient in the first month’s pot to cover the costs. Once the first month’s levy was spent, future expenditure was taken from month 2 until this was exhausted and so on.

Since May 2017, Oxfordshire has accrued a total of £4,047,490 to spend on apprenticeships.

However, Oxfordshire can only keep the accrued levy for 24 months. So, we had until May 2019 to spend May 2017 allocation, June 2019 to spend June 2017 allocation etc.

Any money remaining in a pot that is more than 2 years’ old is returned to the treasury (i.e.The Government at Westminster – my addition). This means that any funding added to our levy pot before October 2018 and not spent was returned.

Our first repayment was September 2019. To date £611,788 has expired and has been repaid to The Treasury. This equates to approximately 37% of the levy we accrued between May 2017 and October 2018.

Levy accrued between November 2018 and October 2020 has not yet reached an expiry date so we have approx. £2,326,543 available to spend.

Spend on apprenticeships is increasing every year which indicates that the level of levy we will need to repay should reduce over the coming months and years.

Levy Spend per calendar year was:

 2017£18,225.54
2018£144,403.85
2019£435,201.48
Jan – Sept2020£511,227.38

It is anticipated that 2020 final spend will be approx. £700k as we have recently started a number of degree level apprenticeships that will draw down large monthly amounts.

For information, school contribution and spend for 2019 is:

  • Contribution to the levy: £405,596
  • Spend: £232,858

The county team continues to promote apprenticeships (both employed and CPD) where ever possible throughout the organisation whilst recognising further work needs to be done.

If this lack of spending the cash raised by the levy from schools, and MATs have the same problem, is common across the country then it is time to seek reform.

We need more apprenticeships, so making use of the cash to train teachers would be one possible change. Creating two non-teaching posts with substantial training elements might be another low cost approach that might also help reduce unemployment if linked to other programmes.

Whatever approach is taken, schools should not see any of their hard fought for cash being returned unspent to government. Just as they should not now be wasting cash on expensive recruitment advertising.

To ask for more funds must run alongside making the best use of the cash already in the system.

Action for local government: Apprenticeship funding needs radical change. If the Government increased Levy flexibilities, including allowing public pooling of funds, Treasury pausing its expiry policy, and devolving non-levy funding, local government could support local businesses in a much more targeted and coherent way, including by allowing them to target sectors, address local supply / demand side issues, widen participation to disadvantaged groups and specific cohorts. A proportion could be spent on pre-apprenticeship training / administration of programmes. This could support the development of the Opportunity Guarantee. Alongside these measures, we call for a levy payment holiday (up to 6 months) for businesses struggling with cashflow problems and allow employers to collaborate on transferring / pooling. DfE should also pause the switch-off of frameworks until March 2021.

Bumping along the bottom mark 2

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s data from UCAS revealing the latest data about applications for postgraduate ITT courses shows a picture very similar to that of March last year. Applications for courses in England were 22,100 by the 18th March this year, compared with 22,430 on the 19th March 2018. Really little changed. By the end of the recruitment round last year not enough applicants were recruited in a range of subjects and, unless the Brexit fiasco causes an upset of significant proportions, the same result seems likely again this year.

Casting around for items of good news, it seems as if applications from those 21 or younger is the same as last year at this point in time, and applications from those above the age of 30 are higher than last year, by around 500 applicants. But, applications from the other age groups are down on last year. Chemistry, Biology and Religious Education are doing well for applications this year, but many other subjects are only around the same level as in March last year and in a few cases hitting new lows.

The decline in applications is greater for men than for women, with men now only accounting for 29% of applicants to ITT postgraduate courses. Overall numbers placed are still down on this point in 2018, at 570, compared with 750 in 2018, and although conditionally placed numbers are up, those holding offers are at a similar level to last year.

There must be serious concerns about Business Studies, with just 360 applications, of which just 70 have been placed; all conditionally. Similarly, in design and technology, there are only 730 applications across all aspects of the subject, with just 150 of these having been placed; again all conditionally. both these subjects are already in short supply in the teacher labour market.

Never fear, 1,140 physical education applications have resulted in places being accepted along with 670 in history and 560 in geography. 690 of the 3,180 applications for Biology have resulted in applicants being placed. However, for Physics, the number is just 190 out of 960.

Can the School Direct Salaried route survive? So far only 220 applications have resulted in either a place or an applicant holding one or more offers out of 2,070 applications in the secondary sector. Things are a bit better in the primary sector, with 1,190 placed or holding offers, out of 6,140 applications. However, neither sector seems to be attracting many applications for postgraduate teaching apprenticeships. So far, there have only been 330 applications for these course across both sectors.

The loss of interest among applicants is still mainly in the primary sector, but the figures for applications to courses to train in the secondary sector are affected by the few subjects where there has been growth in the number of applications.

As noted earlier, most shortage subjects are still bumping along the bottom, and with pupil numbers increasing again in 2020 when these applicants will enter the labour market for teachers that is not good news.

 

 

FE: too often forgotten

Posted on by
2

This blog is as guilty as many in education of too often overlooking the further education sector. Despite its status of something of a poor relation to both higher education and the school sector, further education has an important part to play in developing the economic activity of our nation. One of my regrets about the Coalition government was that it allowed the further education sector to be excluded from the funding deal for schools. That deal may not have been perfect, but it has left schools, and especially those secondary schools without 16-18 provision, relatively much better off than the further education sector. The oft quoted number is that a lecturer in the FE sector earns around £7,000 less than a school teacher when teaching the same age group.

One has to ask, is it rational to be thinking of cutting fees for higher education without also considering the funding of further education, where a portion of higher education work also takes place. I suspect that a significant amount of the work on FE funding assumed that further education could subsidise expensive practical subjects from the assumed cheaper to deliver classroom based education. Such a view is both short-sighted and not, I suspect, based on much in the way of evidence. I guess that when general studies was taught to classes 100 or more day release students, such subsidies were possible: but mostly, I suspect, that was a long time ago.

Teaching English and Mathematics, both classroom based subjects, to those that failed to reach a satisfactory level at school cannot be done in large classes. It also cannot be done properly by those without sufficient knowledge and skills of teaching.  Practical subjects whether construction or hairdressing need both small groups and often expensive equipment. The Treasury doesn’t seem to realise this fact. Government also doesn’t seem to realise that students often have to travel significant distances to attend colleges offering subjects they are interested in learning.

We have already seen a couple of universities flirt with financial issues and there must be a risk as the number of 16-18 year olds reduces for the next couple of years that further education as a sector will experience the same sorts of serious financial problems.

Once the agony of the Brexit saga is finally resolved, one way or another, then British industry and commerce must step in to support the development of the further education sector as a means of creating talent for our wealth generating industries, whether old manufacturing skills or modern IT related skills or those that have yet to be fully understood around the applications of AI across the workplace.

Now is the time to review the economics of the whole 16-18 sector. Schools are able to support small sixth forms, especially where pupil numbers are growing at Key Stage 3. Colleges don’t have this luxury and it is a false economy to under-fund them when we need a more productive and skilled workforce at all levels. Those that don’t go to university are as important in our economy as those that do and much less of a burden on the public purse.  They deserve a better deal.

 

 

What’s happening to apprenticeships?

Posted on by
Reply

This blog doesn’t often venture into the world of further education and training. It is a specialist area that is generally best left to those that know more about it that myself. However, I was struck by the data on apprenticeships published by the DfE yesterday, amid a range of other statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/apprenticeships-and-traineeships-july-2018 We are not, of course at the end of the statistical year for this dataset, but the fourth quarter is usually the quietist. As a result, the August to April data can be regarded as a relatively safe verdict on the direction of travel for apprenticeships.

It might have been thought that the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in April 2017 would have provided a boost for the number of new apprentices, as firms and public bodies sought to access their contributions to the Levy and the additional government support on offer. Sadly, that doesn’t seem always to have been the case. I know this from my continual questions to Oxfordshire County Council about the use, or lack of use, of the approaching half a million pounds collected from schools within the county. Sadly, if not used after two years the money goes to the Treasury coffers and not back to the schools from whose budgets it was collected: it is not as if schools have cash to spare and taxing them like this is bad government on a big scale.

Anyway, back to the data. In the period August 2017 to April 2018, some 753,300 apprenticeships were recorded. This is down from the 870,000 recorded in August t2016 to April 2017. The fall in under nineteens was from 689,300 to 592,700. Even accepting the fall in the size of the age cohort, this looks like quite a large fall in the number of young people on apprenticeships since the Levy was first raised in April 2017.

This fall is conformed in the data on new starts to apprenticeship, where the numbers seem even more dramatic, even after allowing for the possible late registration of some apprenticeships. As the DfE Bulletin notes: 290,500 apprenticeship starts have been reported so far in 2017/18, compared with 440,300 and 384,500 at this time in 2016/17 and 2015/16, a decrease of 34.0 and 24.5 per cent respectively. This doesn’t seem like a very good testimony to the creation of the Apprenticeship Levy. Surely, it was designed to increase participation and offer a route for young people that might want to earn and learn rather than pay and study at university. Under 19 starts are down in the nine month period from 122,800 to 90,300 across all of the apprenticeship routes. Even allowing for the change in size of the cohort, this is a disappointing statistic.

The drive to increase apprentice numbers has stalled. The 2017/18 numbers look being the lowest yearly total since the present record set was first collected in 2011/12. At a time when skilled labour is needed across the economy, either young people are turning their backs on apprenticeships in favour of higher education or the new system isn’t working, but is acting as a re-run of the Selective Employment Tax of the 1960s and sucking cash out of employers ad their business to eventually provide a windfall gain for the Treasury. Either way, a rethink seems necessary.

Levy or a tax on small schools?

Posted on by
2

I wonder how the Apprenticeship Levy is working out in your part of England. Many primary schools have had to pay into the Levy because, as maintained schools, their local authority is the ‘de jure’ employer. Academies and voluntary schools, along with free schools, generally escape the Levy, unless part of a Multi Academy Trust with a pay bill of more than £3 million.

In Oxfordshire, the primary schools are likely to pay just short of half a million pounds over the course of the financial year into the Levy. With a Teaching Apprenticeship not up and running in time for this September that leaves either support or other staff apprenticeships or the possibility of using the cash to develop the existing teaching force through advanced apprenticeships as a way of accessing the Levy.

In my book, preparing primary teachers for a leadership position would have been a useful way to spend the Levy. Now, I am not clear whether it can only be spent in the school from where it has been collected or whether, as the ‘employer’, a local authority can aggregate the cash rather than see it not being used.

In former times, this would have been a task for an officer overseen by a director, perhaps after a discussion at a committee meeting. Contrast this with the cabinet system, where, if the Cabinet Member isn’t interested, it is difficult to see how policy is formed unless a particular officer is prepared to make an effort. In constrained financial times, such as local authorities now face that seems unlikely in many authorities: perhaps readers can tell me different in their experience.

There is a further problem thrown up by the cabinet system. When seeking information in public, do you ask a question of cabinet member for finance, as the department collecting the Levy; the cabinet member responsible for education activities, as covering the operational area or the cabinet member responsible for human resources as they should be informing other operating areas about the policy for handling the Levy? With only one question at a Cabinet Meeting, councillors, at least in Oxfordshire, cannot afford to make the wrong choice if they want to be able to ask a supplementary.

Nationally, I wonder whether the teacher associations have been as ‘on the ball’ about the consequences of the Levy as they could have been. The last thing I want to see is financially hard-pressed primary schools paying into a fund that isn’t then spent for their benefit. I still wonder why there wasn’t more of a fuss about taxing the smallest schools while letting off some of the larger schools. This doesn’t seem equitable to me, especially when funding is so tight. Added to all the other cost pressures on schools, this is another nail in the coffin for the small village primary schools. Is that something the present government wants to achieve: surely not?

 

 

Apprenticeships and schools

Posted on by
2

The government has published some experimental statistics around the use of apprenticeship by those providers registered with the central service for administration. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/apprenticeship-service-registrations-and-commitments-august-2017 The most interesting feature of the numbers is the fact that there were more apprenticeships registered for those over the age of twenty five than in either of the other two younger age groups. Under nineteens were the smallest numerical grouping. If this reflects the overall pattern, then apprenticeships are not reaching young people who might previously have left school at sixteen. These numbers also don’t suggest a wholesale flight from higher education into apprenticeships, at least in the first year of the apprenticeship levy for centrally registered employers.

Locally, in Oxfordshire, I have asked for information about the amount of cash collected by the local authority from the maintained school sector. There is a silly system whereby academies and voluntary schools only pay the apprenticeship levy if their pay bill is over £3miliion per year whereas all maintained schools will pay, except perhaps in the smallest local authorities, as the collective authority pay bill will almost certainly be over £3million even when many services have been contracted out.

I am keen to see how much of the cash collected is being spent on apprenticeships and what happens if the fund is underspent this year? I would hate for the cash to be lost either into the general budget or returned to government as unspent: effectively representing a tax on hard pressed schools.

Looking at school web sites, the apprentice learning assistant seems the most common type of school-based apprenticeship on offer. I worry, in a few cases, whether this is really an apprenticeship leading to a qualification or a cheap way of paying just £3.40 an hour to someone to do the job for most of the week. I don’t know who is monitoring the provision of apprenticeship and where an apprentice can complain if they think they are just being exploited: although I am sure that wouldn’t be the case by a school.

I have seen science and IT technical type apprenticeship offered by schools and MATs that seem obvious areas for providing skill based training. There are also some in the area of supporting physical education in schools. This is another area where the job description risks creating quasi-teachers.

Then there is the issue of teacher apprentices, as discussed in an earlier post, will they replace the School Direct Salaried route as a more cost effective approach for schools and, if so, will they be attractive to adult career changers on the one hand and the teaching profession on the other? Will professional associations embrace them or tell their members not to support such trainees as they undermine the notion of an all graduate profession let alone the dream of a Masters level profession for the future?

As I suggested before, could such apprenticeships could also lead to the return of the In-service BEd degree. I well recall teaching Certificate teachers on this course in the 1980s and 1990s and a great experience it was. But, it shouldn’t be necessary again.