FIVE YEARS OF THE MODERN APPRENTICESHIP INITIATIVE: AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN MODELS [1].

Steedman, Hilary

Hilary Steedman [*]

Government has promised that Britain will build a vocational route based on apprenticeship to match that found in the rest of Europe. However, judged on the first five years of Modern Apprenticeship, every important aspect of apprenticeship in Britain will need to be strengthened and improved if the government's aspirations are to be realised.

'Beyond compulsory school age, we are determined to build a coherent and high-quality vocational education and training system that is the envy of the world.' [Opportunity and Skills in the Knowledge-Driven Economy, a final statement on the work of the National Skills Task Force from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, 2001.]

Introduction

Earlier this year, the government gave a commitment to build a vocational route to high-level skills and qualifications in Britain. This commitment arose from recognition that Britain did not have the coherent and transparent vocational route to intermediate and high level skills which, in other countries, had contributed to raising post-16 educational achievement. Evidence of widespread skill shortages and skill deficiencies at the intermediate (craft, technician and associate professional) level revealed in the audit carried out by the National Skills Task Force (DfEE, 2000) was a further spur to action. Apprenticeship was identified by government as the institution of choice to form the backbone of the renewed drive to promote vocational education and training for young people post-16. [2]

It therefore seems appropriate to try to spell out more explicitly the standards that would need to be reached if aspiration is to become reality. With that objective, this paper reviews the framework elements of apprenticeship provision and its implementation in those countries where apprenticeship is successfully established. These features are seen as constituting a benchmark against which the British counterpart -- Modern Apprenticeship (MA) -- can be assessed. The extent to which MA in Britain shares the characteristics common to the benchmark countries allows us to assess how far Britain has come in establishing a 'world-class' system. The countries chosen for the study are the German-speaking 'dual-system' countries -- Austria, Germany and Switzerland -- and France, Denmark and the Netherlands.

The German-speaking dual-system countries have a strong apprenticeship tradition which is continuing to attract large numbers of young people and employers to engage in apprenticeship across all sectors of the economy. In these countries at least two thirds of all young people embark on -- and the great majority complete -- an apprenticeship training.

France has a more restricted apprenticeship tradition; between 10 and 15 per cent of young people enter apprenticeship, but numbers have grown very rapidly in recent years and this makes France an interesting case for study.

Like the German-speaking dual system countries, Denmark has a long tradition of apprenticeship. A rolling programme of change and reform has been in place for the past twenty years and the proportion of young people entering apprenticeship has remained roughly constant. Currently around a third of young people in Denmark gain a vocational qualification through apprenticeship.

The Netherlands has also restructured vocational education following new legislation in 1996. Apprenticeship numbers, which had been declining in the 1980s, reversed that decline in the 1990s and are continuing to increase. Currently around 30 per cent of young people in the Netherlands enter an apprenticeship programme. For comparison, the percentage of a young age cohort starting apprenticeship in England and Wales is around 9 per cent for Modern Apprenticeship and 11 per cent for (the more elementary level) National Traineeships.

The next section examines standards set by leading nations. It is followed in turn by a survey of ways of achieving the apprentice-employer match; an analysis of incentives for entry to and completion of apprenticeship; and an overview of management and financing. The concluding section summarises the main points of difference between Britain and other European countries and assesses the gap between Britain and best continental practice.

Framework and standards

Duration of apprenticeship training

In the German-speaking 'dual-system' countries -- Austria, Germany and Switzerland -- every apprenticeship leads to a recognised occupational qualification and the length of the apprenticeship training period for each occupation is fixed and specified by the relevant legislation. The specified period can be shortened in the case of entrants to apprenticeship who hold the Hochschulreife (Abitur) in Germany or the Maturitat in Austria. In Switzerland it is rare for entrants to apprenticeship also to hold a university entrance qualification, and in Austria there is provision for the training period to be shortened for those who already have substantial experience! qualifications in the occupational area concerned. However, the vast majority of those who enter 'dual-system' apprenticeships follow the apprenticeship training programme for three or more years.

This insistence on a fixed time duration for apprenticeship reflects the fact that apprenticeship is understood to be a period of education as well as a period of training. In the case of most German and Austrian regions many of the apprentices are, in fact, fulfilling the requirements of compulsory school attendance in force in their region (Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten, 1998). [3]

Denmark has a long-established tradition of apprenticeship training based on 'dual-system' principles, [4] and has recently (with effect from 2001) reformed and revised apprenticeship education and training arrangements and requirements. As before, young people who decide to study for a recognised vocational qualification will alternate between periods of study in college and periods of work in a firm. But the new arrangements stress flexibility and individualisation of training programmes within a statutory framework. The aim is to adapt to students' individual abilities, needs and interests, to promote high achievement and prevent drop-out. As a consequence, training periods are expressed in terms of minimum (1 1/2) and maximum (4 1/2) years duration (OECD, 1999). The typical duration is 3 1/2-4 years. The basic (first part) of the apprenticeship training cannot be completed in fewer than ten weeks of college-based education and the college-based component of the main (second part) of the apprenticeship normal ly has a maximum limit of 60 weeks. The distribution of apprenticeship training programmes in the dual-system countries by duration is summarised in table 1.

In France and the Netherlands, apprenticeship can lead to an occupational qualification at a number of different levels ranging from the equivalent of the UK NVQ2 (in the Netherlands a very small number go no further than an NVQ1 level) to the equivalent of UK NVQS (France) or UK NVQ4 (Netherlands). Those who move from one level to the next will spend a period of 2+2 or even 2+2+2 years in apprenticeship.

The distribution of apprenticeship training programmes in France and the Netherlands by duration as determined by Level studied for is given in table 2.

In the UK, as part of the change from YTS to YT in the early 1990s, a fixed training duration was no longer a condition of public funding of youth training. No change was made in this respect when Modern Apprenticeship (MA) was introduced in 1995. Duration was at the discretion of the employer. In 1998, only 10 per cent of British employers surveyed expected apprenticeship in their companies to last less than 18 months. In three sectors, Child Care, Health and Social Care and Hotels and Catering, between a fifth and a quarter of all apprenticeships were expected to last for 18 months or less (DfEE 1998). However, a recent analysis shows that the gap between expectation and actual length of stay in apprenticeship is huge. In four of the ten largest apprenticeship sectors accounting for roughly a third of all apprenticeship starts, Health and Social Care, Retailing, Hotels and Catering and Customer Service, the average actual length of stay in apprenticeship was less than one year. The average actual length of stay in all sectors was considerably less than 'expected' and none was longer than two years (Fuller and Unwin, 2001).

In its Consultation Document on Modern Apprenticeship (published in 2000), the UK government asked 'Can improved LSC [Learning and Skill Council] inspection and quality assurance arrangements ensure training is done properly without the need for minimum periods of training?' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), representing some 250,000 employers, reiterated its opposition to fixed duration of training periods.[5] This opposition must be understood in the wider context of employer opposition to time-serving' which characterised British apprenticeship in the first half of the twentieth century and employer determination to retain control over all aspects of learning in apprenticeship. In their Response to the Consultation Document, the CBI wrote 'Employers are not educators and Modern Apprenticeships are part of the foundation learning system -- not the education system'. The CBI therefore rejected proposals put forward in the Consultation Document for minimum periods of training and for mandatory peri ods of off-the-job training on the grounds that these 'will not deliver the results we all want' (CBI, 2000).

The content of training programmes

The six continental European countries considered here all require apprenticeship training programmes to consist of three elements:

* general education;

* technical education;

* occupational skills and competences.

In the 'dual-system' countries, standards of general and technical education are differentiated by occupation. It is accepted that some occupations will make more stringent demands in certain areas of general and technical education than others. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the regional Ministry of Education and in Denmark the national Ministry draw up standards in consultation with the industry body responsible for a given occupational area. There is no attempt to align standards of general or technical education in apprenticeship with a wider national standard.

In France and the Netherlands all apprenticeship programmes are required to offer general and technical education components. However, the balance may vary by occupation and by level. There is an attempt to align standards across occupational areas and within levels.

The 1996 reform of vocational education in the Netherlands specified that at each level courses were to have three dimensions which correspond to the three elements outlined above (Down, 1999). These are:

* social/cultural;

* general/technical (to ensure progression possibilities);

* vocational.

Overall, in all these countries, between 70 and 80 per cent of an apprentice's training period is spent in the workplace, including time devoted to workplace training. The balance is divided roughly equally between general and more occupationally-focused technical education.

The distribution of the apprentice training period between time spent in the workplace and time spent in school is thus weighted heavily towards the workplace in all countries. In all the 'dual-system' countries and in the Netherlands, off-the job education and training is ensured through compulsory attendance at publicly provided vocational colleges/institutions within the wider structure of upper-secondary school provision.

In France, until recently, employers and Chambers of Commerce were the main providers of off-the-job education and training for apprentices. However, the curriculum to be followed and assessment procedures are identical to those in full-time publicly provided vocational education. A recent innovation in France is the provision for apprentices to attend a publicly provided vocational lycee for their off-the-job education and training.

Modern Apprentices in the UK are currently required only to 'work towards' an NVQ qualification at Level 3, although to receive a final certificate of completion they must obtain the relevant NVQ 3 certificate and demonstrate competence in Key Skills. The NVQ is a checklist of occupational competences demonstrated and assessed in the workplace. Consequently, the UK apprenticeship has not, up to now, measured up to the requirements for separately taught and assessed technical and general education found in other European countries. [6]

As to the limitations of NVQ qualifications, suffice it to say that the government-appointed National Skills Task Force found the lack of a coherent body of underpinning knowledge, which characterised the NVQ template, to be seriously damaging to the development of Modern Apprenticeship. [7] The Modern Apprenticeship Consultation Document put forward a proposal for a technical certificate to be an additional requirement alongside the NVQ qualification. This proposal could bring the balance of learning in the UK Modern Apprenticeship closer to the structure of that in Continental Europe. However, there is still no recognition by the UK government that general education should continue during apprenticeship.

Assessment

In the countries of continental Europe considered here, the successful completion of apprenticeship is conditional on successful completion of both elements of the apprenticeship programme:

* off-the-job general and technical education;

* on-the-job acquisition of skills and competences.

General and technical education is assessed in continental Europe by tests or examination set and marked by outside bodies or the regional education authorities. Occupational skills and competences are almost invariably assessed by practical tests (with external assessors), and through oral examination conducted by a panel of assessors. In addition, portfolio evidence is now also used as part of assessment of practical work in addition to the procedures outlined above.

In the UK, in contrast, of the elements of the MA that constitute the full qualification - NVQ 3 and Key Skills - only Key Skills are permitted to be assessed by examination. There is enormous variation in the way NVQ competences are assessed and the extent to which assessors have a financial stake in the outcome of the assessment. Most apprentices are assessed on their performance of tasks in the workplace. [8] Unlike their European counterparts, UK apprentices are not assessed by objective methods which promote confidence that consistent standards have been applied regardless of sector, occupation or employer. While the employer of an apprentice may be indifferent to the reliability and transparency of the qualification awarded, lack of consistent, objective and reliable assessment lowers the labour-marker value of the qualification to the apprentice.

The standards required for successful completion of apprenticeship

The standard of mathematics required for the British NVQ3 award in building trades is considerably less demanding than that required for apprenticeship qualifications in Europe (Steedman and Hawkins, 1994). In a separate study, the technical knowledge required for NVQ3 was also judged to be narrower and less demanding than that required for the equivalent qualification in Germany. However, some occupational competences - in particular speed of working expected - were found to be more demanding in NVQ3 than in the equivalent German qualification (Steedman et al., 1996).

Overall, it was judged that a young person who successfully completes an apprenticeship qualification in the German-speaking dual system would be able to meet the standard for a British NVQ3 in the same occupation. However, it was judged that the young person with a British apprenticeship and NVQ3 would not be able to reach the standard required for the dual-system general and technical education requirements on the basis of NVQ3 alone. [9]

Achieving the apprentice-employer match

In all six European countries considered here, responsibility for finding an apprentice place rests with the young person. The young person wishing to enter apprenticeship must find an employer willing to take him/her on.

This places a requirement on the young person to consider carefully the occupation/sector that he/she wishes to train for and the type of company where they would like to work. The German-speaking dual system countries make systematic provision for the study of career options available through the apprenticeship route. This process starts in the last two years of compulsory schooling (from about age fourteen) when specific lesson periods are set aside for careers teachers to work through information packs, and other materials which explain career options, the occupational structure and the training required (Jarvis, 1994). Visits are arranged to Centres run by the Careers Service and school students are encouraged to explore the information available independently (Steedman, 1994).

Easily accessible and comprehensive information on occupations, qualifications and the offer of apprenticeship places is therefore essential for the match to be successful. In Germany and France excellent websites with comprehensive information on occupations are available. In addition, a range of sites in Germany allow the young person to search by occupation a database of employers who are seeking apprentices.

In France, as well as internet sites, help in finding a place is provided by the employer-managed Apprentice Training Centres (CFA). In Denmark, vocational colleges use their close links with employers via Local Trade Committees to help young people to locate a suitable place. If an apprenticeship with an employer cannot be found, the college will provide a college-based training with periods spent in the workplace. Currently around 6 per cent of apprentices in Denmark have places provided by a college.

On the other hand, in British secondary schools there is no systematic provision for introducing students to career opportunities offered by apprenticeship. Furthermore, there is no website available at national, regional or local level which provides comprehensive information on apprenticeships by occupation/sector together with links to sites giving details of employers offering apprenticeships or to other ways of accessing provision. [10]

In Germany, in the late 1990s, it became somewhat more difficult for young people to find an apprenticeship place and there is now a marked tendency for young people to enter apprenticeship later than was previously the case. Many prepare themselves for apprenticeship by taking pre-apprenticeship and other courses in college. As a consequence, apprentices are getting older. Instead of the previous appropriate age of 16 years, in Germany those entering are now aged around 18 years, in France over half of all apprentices are 18 or over, and in Denmark beginning apprentices are normally at least 18 years old.

While a small minority of apprentices in Britain enter apprenticeship by applying directly to an employer, for example in answer to an advertisement, most are channelled through local Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs), now Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) who then direct the young person to a 'training provider'. In England alone, there are some 1330 training providers. Of these, just under 20 per cent are employers. A further third are private companies and a further 20 per cent are Further Education Colleges. The remainder are Chambers of Commerce, Group Training Associations, Local Authorities and not-for-profit providers. Only around 5 per cent of all apprentices are directly recruited and trained by employers. The remainder are the responsibility of the training provider, who contracts with the TEC/LSC to find an employer willing to take the young person. Frequently, most of the training and assessment which comprises apprenticeship in Britain is carried out by the provider rather than the emplo yer where the apprentice is based.

Access to apprenticeship

There are no legally prescribed pre-requisites for entry to apprenticeship in the other European countries considered here. [11] Nevertheless, in the dual system countries it is well-known that good school marks will open the door to a prestigious occupation or firm. The importance that firms attach to school marks means that most young Germans have an incentive to do as well as possible at school in order to have a chance of the apprenticeship of their choice. Only a very few fail to obtain one of the various recognised school-leaving certificates in the German-speaking countries and in Denmark.

Apprenticeship is not primarily seen as a way of providing for all low attainers; for that purpose there are other specific and more suitable work-based programmes. The primary aim of the apprenticeship system as a whole is to renew the national skills base and develop the skills of young people. The wide range of authorised apprenticeships ensures that young people with only modest academic attainments also find an apprenticeship place and benefit from apprenticeship in the dual system.

In the UK in a recent year, of those entering Modern Apprenticeship programmes, 11 per cent held an A-level qualification or equivalent and the remainder were divided almost equally between those with four or more GCSE passes at Grades A-C and those with passes below this standard. Only 5 per cent had no qualifications.

While the number (in relation to the population) of British apprentices is lower, their proportionate distribution by prior educational qualification does not appear to be very different from that in Germany or indeed in France. A somewhat higher proportion of UK apprentices have A-level type qualifications than in Switzerland and Austria.

Employing an apprentice: the German-speaking dual system countries

Many employers in the German-speaking dual system countries will either have had direct experience of being an apprentice and will almost certainly have a substantial number of employees who have obtained an apprenticeship certificate. In Germany especially, employers having direct experience of being an apprentice will not be confined to the smaller artisan-type firms. Apprenticeship, followed by full-time technical study is a recognised route into management in Germany.

Employers wishing to offer an apprenticeship in Germany will, if necessary, turn for guidance to the local Chamber of Commerce (IHK). The IHK has a legal obligation to champion the interests of industry and commerce in its area and offers a wide range of business services to all firms. It takes responsibility for most of the employer's administrative paperwork associated with taking on an apprentice and organises the intermediate and final apprentice examinations.

Employing an apprentice: France

Although apprenticeship in France is largely provided by the private sector, it is nevertheless heavily regulated by French law. The procedure that a French employer must follow to take on an apprentice is not for the fainthearted. However, French employers are used to detailed legal regulation of employment relations and it is possible that the requirements seem to them less daunting than they might to a British counterpart. As in Germany, the local Chamber of Commerce and the local Centre de Formation des Apprentis (CFA) help to put employers in touch with young people seeking an apprentice.

In Britain the complexities of the funding regime associated with apprenticeship are widely recognised as being too complex for most employers to manage. [12] Training providers have filled the gap, as described above. However, training providers are in turn driven by funding incentives which derive from government targets for numbers of young people placed in government-supported training. Depending on the particular funding regime adopted by each TEC, funding may bias training towards low-cost provision which does not necessarily correspond to local skill needs. Once the government targets have been met, and funding committed, additional employers wishing to take on an apprentice have been refused adequate funding (rationing).

Motivating young people to enter and complete apprenticeship programmes

Incentives to enter and complete

The German apprenticeship attracts young people as a result of a combination of negative and positive incentives. Similar incentive structures pertain in the other German-speaking dual system countries. One important negative incentive is the length of university degree courses and high drop-out rate in Germany which deters some of the more academic from applying to university and leads a substantial proportion to enter apprenticeship.

The single most important positive incentive is the quasi-institutionalised and social recognition accorded to the apprenticeship qualification. Whatever the apprenticeship occupation, a completed apprenticeship confers a professional identity and consequent recognised social status. [13] A further positive incentive to participation and completion is the restriction enshrined in many collective agreements that access to technician and Meister status is open only to those who have completed the relevant apprenticeship. In the Handwerk (artisan) sector, the apprenticeship certificate is a necessary condition for independent practice, and apprenticeship followed by a period of full-time professional education is a recognised route to management in many industries.

In addition, the stability of collective bargaining arrangements in Germany, which negotiate the skilled/semi-skilled wage differential, gives confidence that a completed apprenticeship will be significantly rewarded on the labour market.

The combination of these incentives explains why nearly two-thirds of young Germans enter apprenticeship. A substantial proportion of all those with Realschulabschluss school-leaving qualifications -- roughly equivalent to our five GCSE Grades A-C -- choose apprenticeship in Germany, whereas in the UK most of their counterparts would aim for university entrance.

The negative incentives, which arise from the very strict German labour-market regulation relating to occupational qualification, are not present in Denmark, France and the Netherlands to the same extent. In the latter countries, university courses, while longer than in the UK, are not as long as in Germany. Furthermore, a more well-developed full-time route to vocational qualifications at Levels 3/4 exists in these countries (and, to a lesser extent in Austria), which tends to restrict the range of occupations for which apprenticeship can prepare (Lassnigg and Schneeberger, 1998). In all these countries, efforts have been made to improve the attractiveness of apprenticeship to more academically able students by improving links and bridges to the range of qualifications available from full-time education.

In Denmark apprenticeship programmes have been modularised and the same 'catalogue' of courses is available to those in initial vocational education and to adults in adult education programmes. Programmes have been made more attractive by the emphasis placed on the individualisation of programmes with the aim of reducing student drop-out. In apprenticeship programmes, individualisation takes the form of allowing students to complete the study programmes required over variable time periods within set minima and maxima. For apprentices, the VET college curriculum is structured around basic subjects, area subjects, special subjects and optional subjects. These last two allow for greater individualisation of the programme both to adapt to the interests of the company (special subjects) and to adapt to the interests of the individual apprentice (optional subjects). As in the Netherlands, higher level vocational courses provided within the framework of higher education, including technical courses in a wide range o f occupational fields and industries, are specifically tailored to graduates from apprenticeship.

In the other European countries examined here, care has been taken to try to ensure that reform of the overall structure of education and training improves incentives to follow apprenticeship programmes. In Britain, the reverse has been the case. One of the main attractions of apprenticeship to young people -- the ability to 'earn while you learn' -- may have been undermined by the progressive introduction of the Educational Maintenance Allowance for young people in full-time education. The initiative to establish a technical certificate as part of the apprenticeship qualification was initially floated without much thought for how it might promote progression to proposed new degree level qualifications (Foundation Degree). Finally, the pool of well-qualified (five or more GCSEs Grades A-C) applicants for apprenticeship continues to be drained by the government's rapid expansion of places in higher education. [4]

In France, State regulations have always prescribed that apprentices must study for nationally-recognised vocational qualifications which are identical to those awarded in full-time education. In 1993, legislation extended this principle to all levels of nationally-recognised vocational qualifications up to and including first degree level. While numbers taking the higher levels through apprenticeship remain relatively small, there is no doubt that recent strong growth in apprenticeship numbers results from apprentices taking the higher level qualifications. Furthermore, the status of apprenticeship is being slowly transformed by greater association with the higher, and more prestigious levels of qualification in the French system (Simon, 2001).

Completion and success rates

In the German-speaking dual system countries there is provision in the apprenticeship contract for a trial period at the beginning of the apprenticeship. Around one fifth of German apprentices leave the apprenticeship before the end of the official required duration, of whom many do so in the initial trial period. A significant proportion subsequently re-enter apprenticeship in a different occupation and/or with a different firm. Of those who remain in apprenticeship almost all (95 per cent) are successful in the final examinations--some after retaking the examinations (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, 2000).

In Denmark, it is not easy to calculate final completion rates for vocational qualifications because of a tendency for young people to change direction while studying. For vocational education overall, the completion rate is calculated at about 65 per cent. However for apprenticeship training the rate is much higher; estimated at 90 per cent (OECD, 1998).

Drop-out from vocational courses is also of concern to policymakers in the Netherlands. Around 20 per cent of students on a two year vocational course drop out in the first year of their course (Brandsma and Noonan, 2000).

In Britain no wholly reliable figures are available to show how many of those who start on a Modern Apprenticeship gain the full qualification (NVQ 3 and Key Skills qualification). But figures showing proportions of apprentices gaining any full NVQ qualification (at Level 2 or 3) reveal that only two thirds gained any full NVQ qualification; just under half gained an NVQ3 (DfES, 2001). However, this success rate, low as it is in comparison with other countries, is considerably higher than for all young people who embark on an NVQ3 in apprenticeship, part-time or full-time education. In 1997/98 just under a fifth(!) of all 16-18 year olds who were enrolled for an NVQ course at Levels 3 or 4 successfully obtained the certificate aimed for (Payne, 2000).

Managing and financing apprenticeship

Apprenticeship is one of the oldest forms of public-private partnership and successful management of the interests of all the parties involved -- employers, individuals and the government -- calls for skilful management of incentives and structures.

The German-speaking dual-system countries

Several levels should be distinguished for understanding the management of apprenticeship in German-speaking dual-system countries.

At the Federal level, the Ministry of Education approves and issues training regulations for each recognised occupation. These regulations, which are the result of consultation at local, regional and national level between the relevant employer and employee sector organisations, constitute a broad framework within which the firm's own training plan must fit. The Federal parliament also approves the legislative framework, in Germany the Berufsbildungsgesetz (BBiG), which prescribes the terms of the apprenticeship agreement between employers and apprentices and the regulation of the prescribed examinations and assessments for the award of the apprenticeship certificate.

The regions (Lander) have responsibility for the curriculum, financing and provision of all education below the tertiary level. Responsibility for developing the curriculum to be followed by apprentices in the off-the-job training element of the apprenticeship which is provided in the vocational college (Berufschule) rests with the Land authorities. The Land also provides the schools and trains the teachers.

The Lander voluntarily coordinate curricula at all levels of the education system through the Standing Conference of Lander Ministers of Education. Lander committees for vocational training composed of equal numbers of employer, employee and Land representatives advise on the content of the curriculum in the vocational schools.

Finance for apprentices' off-the-job vocational education and training in the Berufschule flows from the Land Ministry of Education to the Berufschule. The origins of the Land finances are diverse and include transfers from the Federal government. These will not be discussed here.

The Vocational Education and Training Act (BbiG) determines which bodies are responsible for oversight and monitoring of apprenticeship in firms. These are normally the Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Trades (IHK) for the different industrial and occupational sectors, and the various federal and Lander authorities for apprenticeship in the public sector. Each IHK is required to set up a vocational training committee comprising six representatives each from employers and employees and six vocational school teachers (who play a consultative role). These committees are responsible for most decisions required by the statutory competence of the IHK with respect to apprenticeship.

There are normally no direct financial transfers of public money to firms with respect to apprenticeship. Finance for apprentices' in-firm training is provided by the firm. However, since reunification, the Federal government has increasingly fully or partially financed a number of additional apprenticeship places for unemployed young people. There are also tax breaks for companies that train (Hummeisheim and Timmermann, 2000).

In a small number of sectors (e.g., construction) the sector has agreed to a self-imposed levy on all firms to finance apprenticeship. There are also a number of arrangements in various sectors and localities for the setting up of joint training facilities. These are normally funded by employers directly through fees paid and indirectly through levies paid to the Chambers of Commerce. Joint training workshops also receive government funds for training unemployed young people and adult unemployed and Federal or Land capital grants for infrastructure. However, these grants are normally one-off pump-priming payments rather than a recurrent funding stream.

Apprentice wages are fixed by sector level collective agreement and are normally around one third of the adult rate for the occupation trained for. German trade unions strongly support apprenticeship, as can be seen from their active involvement at all levels of decision-making and oversight of apprenticeship. It is well understood that both employers and trade unions have an interest in maintaining a good supply of young people and of apprentice places. The level of apprentice wages fixed in collective agreements relative to the adult wage may, therefore, vary according to whether the sector is having difficulty recruiting young people or having difficulty finding employers to offer places. Apprentice wages may rise to something in the order of half the adult rate for the final year of apprenticeship. It is widely recognised that apprentices make an important financial contribution to apprenticeship costs through wages foregone.

The issue of net costs of training incurred by German employers is a complex one and cannot be explored here. Nevertheless, it can be reported that the accepted view is that the smaller artisan-type employers gain some net benefit from apprenticeship within the apprenticeship period while the situation is reversed for larger employers, particularly in the engineering sector.

Denmark

In many ways, apprenticeship in Denmark is managed and funded in a manner similar to that in the German-speaking dual system countries.

Central government regulation is confined to objectives and framework conditions and the recognition of qualifications. This provides maximum freedom to innovate at the local level.

At national level a Trade Committee for every VET course (with parity of representation of the social partners) formulates the broad curriculum for each course and determines duration, objectives and examination standards. Apprentice wage levels are similar to those in the German-speaking dual system countries.

At local level, every college is required by law to set up one or more local education and training committees to match the types of education and training programmes offered by the college. These committees (with a majority of employer/employee representatives on a parity basis) play a vital link role between the college and the local firms. They ensure that local labour needs are satisfied, support the colleges in finding apprenticeships for students and ensure that college teaching is relevant to firms' requirements (Danish Ministry of Education, 2000).

There are three sources of funding for apprenticeship in Denmark.

* The government provides finance for off-the-job college based vocational training by means of direct transfer of funds to the college.

* The employer pays the apprentice a wage (which is regulated by collective bargaining agreements).

* The apprentice's wages while attending off-the-job training in college are 90 per cent refunded by grants from a collective employers' fund (AER). [15]

France

The management and funding of apprenticeship training in France is considerably more complex than in the 'dual-system' countries and will not be examined here in detail. Essentially, apprenticeship operates on a levy/ grant basis with apprentice wages restricted to fixed percentages of the national minimum wage (SMIC) regardless of sector.

Legislation in 1993 and 1996 made changes which help to explain the recent very rapid growth in apprenticeships in France. The Act of 1993 (see previous section) also strengthened the role of the Maitre d'Apprentissage (based in the firm) while the 1996 Act changed the proportion of the levy which was earmarked for apprenticeship (as opposed to other forms of initial VET). The proportion was doubled and disparities between regions smoothed out by means of redistributive mechanisms (Michelet, 1995). This measure appears to have helped to bring about a slight increase in the number of apprentices at the lower level CAP (NVQ2) and the continued rapid growth in apprentices at higher levels (Simon, 2001).

The Netherlands

A far-reaching restructuring process of vocational education and training has taken place in the Netherlands as a result of the Adult and Vocational Education Act (WEB) 1996 (Brandsma and Noonan, 2000).

The key institutions in the organisation and provision of apprenticeship are now the 46 Regional Training Centres (ROCs) formed from many smaller bodies and providing for full-time and apprenticeship courses for young people and adults.

At national level, joint committees -- National Education Committees (LOBs) -- of employer and employee representatives specify the skills to be reached at the final examination for each level of the qualification framework.

Government funds for vocational education and training are transferred directly to the ROCs. In addition, the ROCs are free to bring in funds from other sources, e.g offering courses to local firms. They are granted considerable autonomy to meet regional skill needs as they think fit. Government also funds the LOBs based on the training specifications developed, the number of plants providing training and the number of apprenticeships and other workplace training offered.

Britain

In Britain, unlike the other European countries described above, apprenticeship is not regulated by national legislation. Instead, regulations and guidelines issued by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES formerly DfEE) are followed in a variety of ways in different sectors, leading to wide variations in provision from sector to sector and locality to locality. Financial flows in Britain are also more complex than the arrangements for other European countries outlined above. Public funds flow from the budget of the DfES to local bodies (now Learning and Skills Councils, LSCs; formerly Training and Enterprise Councils, TECs). Funds are then distributed to training providers who contract with a variety of bodies for the provision of apprentice training and assessment required by DfES regulations. Funds then flow from providers to these bodies. In the process, equity and transparency are largely lost, so that the funding devoted to off-the-job training of apprentices can vary from one local body to anot her and from one provider to another. This contrasts sharply with the greater standardisation of off-the-job training funding and provision on the continent achieved by direct transfers to public sector providers.

Conclusions

In every other European country, offers of apprenticeship places enable individual firms to signal immediate and anticipated skill needs to young people. Apprenticeship structures then enable firms to meet those skill needs by appropriate training in partnership with government. By offering places, employers provide good quality information to young people and their parents on future career possibilities. Young people are thereby encouraged to invest in further education and training in a way which helps to meet skill needs and improve the probability of future employment.

In Britain, government practice of target-setting for apprentices in terms of numbers has led to the sidelining of employers in favour of 'training providers' to whom most government funding is channelled on condition that they enable the government to meet its targets. Training providers then 'place' young people with employers with little regard to local skill needs. [16] The prime advantage of apprenticeship as a means of signalling skill need and satisfying demand for skills has thereby been almost entirely dissipated.

In every other European country, apprenticeship is a recognisable 'brand'. Although apprenticeship occupations differ in various ways, the national framework, underpinned by binding legislation on key features (duration, standards and assessment) provides a common identity which allows the 'marketing' of apprenticeship to employers and young people.

In Britain apprenticeship has no legally-defined identity. [17] This in turn gave rise to wide variations in the administration of government funding for the Modern Apprenticeship system by the Training and Enterprise Councils until their abolition a year ago (Training Standards Council, 2000).

Variability in duration, standards, achievements and funding are such that it is impossible to define apprenticeship very clearly in Britain, beyond saying it is 'some combination of paid work and training'. [18] While other factors have contributed, this must be one of the main reasons for the chronic information failure that cripples attempts to promote apprenticeship in the UK -- and which has led in the past to apprentices who did not know they were on apprenticeship schemes and widespread confusion among employers.

It is a condition of apprenticeship in all other European countries that young people in apprenticeship continue for part of their time to be educated like their contemporaries within publicly provided upper secondary education. This requirement permits a simple and stable pattern of financial flows and ensures that vocational practice is underpinned by sound technical knowledge and general education and greatly facilitates further progression to higher-level vocational courses from apprenticeship.

In Britain, lobbying by employers' organisations in the early 1980s led to the introduction of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) which could be awarded on the basis of assessment on employers' premises alone. The same organisations pressed for the abandoning of any minimum fixed period for apprenticeship programmes; and for NVQ to be the only qualification to be 'aimed for' in government-sponsored (and government-financed) youth training. Employer pressure (CBI, 2000) has continued to ensure that apprentices in Britain have no entitlement to education during apprenticeship.

There is ample evidence (Fuller and Unwin, 2001) that in a small number of sectors with a longer tradition of apprenticeship training, the schemes provided continue to be of good quality and produce well-qualified young people. [19] But these sectors account for around only one fifth of young people on apprenticeship in Britain today. It is clear that the Modern Apprenticeship initiative has failed to spread that quality of good practice -- as it exists in the traditional sectors -- to sectors new to apprenticeship -- such as Health and Social Care, Customer Service (sic), Business Administration, Hotels & Catering, Hairdressing and Retailing -- which together now account for around half of all apprentice starts in Britain and for almost all female apprentices. This failure only serves to underline the fatal weakness of a non-statutory framework for apprenticeship, compounded by a rush to fulfil government targets on numbers with little regard to quality or local skill requirements. But it should not be assum ed that all is well in the 'traditional' apprenticeship sectors where standards are high. Employers in these sectors are being damaged by the weaknesses of the scheme as a whole. Well-qualified recruits to apprenticeship are difficult to find, information about the excellent opportunities available to young people in their industries does not reach its target population and employers are unable to access government funding for apprenticeship in areas where total funds available have already been allocated elsewhere. [20]

In every other European country except Britain, employers' concern to minimise costs and maximise specific (rather than wider occupational) training is counterbalanced by other bodies which are accorded a compensatory role in the governance of apprenticeship by the legislative framework. In the dual-system countries, trade union representatives perform the essential role of representing the interests of employees and of apprentices themselves at every level -- local to national -- of the apprenticeship structure. In France and the Netherlands, trade union influence is less important but the role of protecting the interests of the apprentice and of other employees is undertaken by government and by education interests.

Apprenticeship was characterised above as a public-private partnership. In the British 'partnership' both trade unions and government have failed to provide sufficient compensatory counterbalance to the voice of employers in the design and day-to-day running of apprenticeship programmes. With a few honourable exceptions -- mainly in the 'traditional' sectors such as engineering and electrical contracting -- trade unions have done nothing to protect the interests of young people entering apprenticeship. Unlike their German counterparts, they have not fought for the right to education and transferable training. Unlike their Danish counterparts, they have not upheld the importance of assessment based on objective evidence. And for successive governments, the work-based training route has been all but invisible. [21] The result, as set out here, is that apprenticeship in Britain, judged as a programme, falls short of that provided elsewhere in Europe on every important measure of good practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the following for helpful comments and information: Svend-Erik Povelsen Ministry of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark; Saskia Ummels, COLO, The Netherlands; Professor Howard Gospel, King's College, University of London. All errors are my own. This paper forms part of the Skills for All research programme at the CEP supported by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. The CEP is an ESRC Research Centre.

(*.) Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.

NOTES

(1) A more detailed version of this paper is available as Steedman, H. (2001), 'Benchmarking apprenticeship: Britain and continental Europe compared', CEP Discussion Paper no. 513.

(2.) Modern Apprenticeship (henceforth MA), was established in 1995 by the then Conservative government. In a recent policy document Education Into Employability: The role of the DfEE in the Economy (DfEE 2001), David Blunkett, the then Secretary of State, announced the intention to build on this policy and to introduce Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (formerly National Traineeships) and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (formerly Modern Apprenticeships). In this paper we shall refer to Modern Apprenticeship (MA) and apprenticeship interchangeably by which is meant the programme as it existed between 1995 and 2001.

(3.) This is not the same as saying that all young people in Germany must attend school part-time until they are 18 -- a regulation that applies only in a few German regions. However, while apprenticeship is entered into voluntarily by the young person concerned, once a young person becomes party to an apprenticeship agreement, part-time school attendance is compulsory.

(4.) http://www.uvm.dk/pub/2000/newstructure/6.htm (accessed on 22/03/01), 'The Danish VET system is organised as a dual system', National Education Authority, 'Access to and structure of VET programmes', in Danish Ministry of Education (2000).

(5.) `The CBI has reservations about the proposals because they focus on inputs and a time-served approach, neither of which is a guarantee of competence' (CBI, 2000).

(6.) The Key Skills requirement is the closest the MA comes to a 'general education element'. These have been extremely unpopular with employers and it is thought that relatively few apprentices have achieved them. They have been further undermined by the practice of some Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) of making final payments for apprenticeships on the basis of NVQ3 alone. As there are no national data showing achievement rates for completed Modern Apprenticeships it is not possible to say how many apprentices had some sort of encounter with Key Skills.

(7.) The National Skills Task Force, in its second report, highlighted the need for qualifications which provided underpinning knowledge and understanding for all apprentices: `The government would like to see separately assessed and certificated underpinning knowledge and understanding as part of all Modern Apprenticeships' (DfEE, 1999).

(8.) The following description of the assessment procedures for Modern Apprentices in the travel industry is probably reasonably representative. 'The Travel Training Programme is a two year course as a full time employee with a travel company with off-the-job training. You will be required to compile a portfolio of evidence for each qualification, which will show your capability to fulfil the role of a travel agency clerk. A visit to your training centre is necessary approximately every six weeks and you will also receive a regular visit by a trained assessor who will check your portfolio and observe your tasks in the workplace (http://www.ttctraining.co.uk/faqs.html#ttp accessed on 13.7.2001).

(9.) In 1996, programmes of study and examination papers from apprenticeship programmes in Germany and France were evaluated and compared with equivalent qualifications in the UK. These comparisons were commissioned and reported by researchers at the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) as part of the CEP's work for the government's Skills Audit (Steedman et al., 1996). The evaluation and comparison of programmes of study and examination papers was carried out by experienced teachers and other industry experts. A full description of the evaluations can be found in Steedman et al. (1996), pp. 79-83. The original examinations compared and the judgements of the independent evaluators can also be inspected on request.

(10.) The closest we have come in the course of several hours of web-surfing is http://www.worktrain.gov.uk. In a search for training opportunities in Birmingham in Mechanical Engineering at NVQ Levels 1, 2 or 3 we were offered an apprenticeship in Technical Services. But a similar search for the travel sector revealed no apprenticeships in Birmingham, despite the fact that at http://ttctraining.co.uk nine firms in the Birmingham area are listed as offering apprenticeships in the travel industry.

(11.) However, most firms in the German-speaking dual-system countries will state the desired educational level when advertising a place (for examples, visit http://www.apa.ihk.de/cgi-bin/suche.php).

(12.) '69% of employers [surveyed] used an external organisation for assessment and accreditation while others out-sourced applications for funding (58%) and recruitment of apprentices (40%)' (CBI, 2000).

(13.) In German, the term gelernte -- meaning a person who has acquired specialised knowledge and skill -- is routinely used of those who have completed an apprenticeship.

(14.) In 2000, after the government funded additional university places, 37 per cent of the under-21 age group in England entered HE (the percentage of all 17/18 year olds with the normal entry requirement of 2 A-level/GNVQ passes was only slightly lower, at 35 per cent). It therefore seems likely that the continuing push for expansion of HE is damaging apprenticeship recruitment by 'scraping the barrel' of those with some form of academic qualification. (Source: DfEE Statistics of Education 1999: GCSE/GNVQ and GCE/AGNVQ, Table 16; DfEE Statistics of Education 1998; GCSE/GNVQ, and GCE/AGNVQ Table 12; DfEE Statistical First Release 35/1999; National Statistics/HESA SFR 48, Table 4).

(15.) The AER fund was introduced in 1977 and is a self-governing institution with parity representation from employer and employee organisations. The main objective of the AER is to provide firms with incentives to create apprenticeships. If a shortage of apprenticeship places arises, the number can be increased by financial support from the AER fund.

(16.) 'The strategy of the previous Conservative and the current Labour governments has been to concentrate on volume, in terms of apprentice numbers .... rather than on skill formation ...important for UK economic growth' (Fuller and Unwin, 2001, p. 52).

(17.) For a sustained comparative analysis of this issue, see Ryan (1999).

(18.) `A combination of paid work or work experience combined with a training element' was the best understanding of apprenticeship revealed in the 1998 survey of young people. Under half (40 per cent) were able to provide this description of apprenticeship. The remainder either gave an even vaguer response or did not know (30 per cent) (Coleman and Williams, 1998).

(19.) The criterion applied is two thirds or more of all leavers gaining a full NVQ or other recognised qualification (based on Fuller and Unwin, 2001, Table 2.)

(20.) For example, the electrotechnical industry estimates an annual shortfall of 35,000 apprentices that the industry needs to recruit but currently is unable to do so. Two thirds of firms surveyed in this industry in 1998 reported vacancies/difficulties in recruitment of apprentices. (National Electrotechnical Training, 1999).

(21.) Fuller and Unwin (2001) point out that the DfEE has no record of employers who provide apprenticeship places. See also Richardson (1998): Most of his report [Dearing Report: Review of Qualifications for 16-19 year olds, 1996] was concerned with the two full-time post-compulsory routes... work-based learning received very slender treatment in relation to the size and complexity of its client group'... when it came to education and training policy in general during 1994-97 it was school standards that continued to dominate media and political debate'.

REFERENCES

Brandsma, J. and Noonan, R. (2000), Transforming the Public Provision of Training: Reorganisation or Privatisation? Long-term Changes in Sweden and the Netherlands, Thessaloniki (Pylea), CEDEFOP.

Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (2000), Berufsbildungsbericht

2000.

Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten (1998), Die Lehre: Berufsausbildung in Osterreich, Vienna.

CBI (2000), The CBI's response to the Modern Apprenticeships Consultation Document, London, Confederation of British Industry.

Coleman, N. and Williams, J. (1998), Evaluation of Modern Apprenticeships: 1998 Survey of Young People, Research Report 93, London, DfEE.

Danish Ministry of Education (2000), The New Structure of the Danish Vocational Education and Training System, Copenhagen.

DfEE (1998), Evaluation of Modern Apprenticeships: 1998 Survey of Employers, Research Report 94, London, DfEE.

--(1999), Second Report of the National Skills Task Force: Delivering Skills for All, London, DfEE.

--(2000), Skills for all: Proposals for a National Skills Agenda, London, DfEE.

DfES (2001), Statistical First Release 28/2001,

Down, T. (1999), Developing Skills Policies in Six Countries, Policy Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2001), 'From cordwainers to customer service: the changing relationship between apprentices, employers and communities in England', SKOPE Discussion Paper, Oxford and Warwick Universities, ISSN 1466-1535.

Hummelsheim, S. and Timmermann. D. (2000), The Financing of Vocational Education and Training in Germany: Financing Portrait, Thessaloniki (Pylea), CEDEFOP.

Jarvis, V. (1994), 'Smoothing the transition to skilled employment: school-based vocational guidance in Britain and Continental Europe', National Institute Economic Review, November.

Lassnigg, L. and Schneeberger, A. (1998), Thematic Review of the Transition from Initial Education to Working Life Country Background Report Austria, Paris, OECD.

Michelet, V. (1995), Le Financement de Ia Formation et de I' Enseignement Professionnel en France: Portrait de Financement, Thessaloniki (Pylea), CEDEFOP.

Ministere de I'Education Nationale (2000), Reperes et References Statistiques 2000.

National Electrotechnical Training (1999), Report on a Skills and Labour Market Survey of the Electrotechnical Industry 1999, London, National Electrotechnical Training.

OECD (1998), Thematic Review of the Transition from Initial Education to Working Life Country Background Report Denmark, Paris, OECD.

--(1999),Thematic Review of the Transition from Initial Education to Working Life Country Note: Denmark, Paris, OECD.

Payne, J. (2000), Student Success Rates in Post-16 Qualifications: Data from the England and Wales Youth Cohort Study, London, DfEE Research Report No. 272.

Richardson, W. (1998), 'Work-based learning for young people: national policy, 1994-1997', Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, 2.

Ryan. P. (1999). 'The institutional attributes and requirements of apprenticeship: evidence from smaller EU countries', University of Cambridge, mimeo.

Simon, G. (2001), 'L'apprentissage: nouveaux territories, nouveaux usages', CEREQ Bref No. 175, May.

Steedman, H. (1994), Making decisions about education and training: a note on practice and procedures in careers guidance in France and Germany', National Institute of Economic and Social Research Discussion Paper no. 55.

Steedman, H. and Hawkins, J. (1994), 'Shifting foundations: the impact of NVQs on youth training for the building trades', National Institute Economic Review, August.

Steedman, H., Green, A., Bertrand, 0., Richter, A., Rubin, M. and Weber, K. (1996), Assessment Qualifications and Standards: UK compared to France, Germany, Singapore and the US, Special report, London, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

Training Standards Council (2000), Modern Apprenticeships: A Survey Report by the Training Standards Council, Oxford.

Table 1.

Distribution of apprenticeship training programmes by duration of
programme, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland (% of all programmes)


 2 years and 3 years and 4 years
 [less than]3 years [less than]4 years

Austria 10 88 2
Denmark typical
Germany 6 72 22
Switzerland 30 50 20



Sources:

Austria http://www.bmwa.gv.at/service/leservice/broschde/

%FCbersicht2.htm (accessed 21/03.01).

Denmark: http://www.uvm.dk/pub/2000/newstructure/6.htm accessed
22/03/01).

Germany: Berufsbildungsbericht 2000 2.2 Table 42.

Switzerland: Statistik Schweiz 15, Building und Wissenschaft, Die
Berufslehre in der Schweiz, http://www.statistik.admin.ch.stat_ch
/ber 15/dlehrvertr_incro.hcm (accessed 21/03/01).
Table 2.

The distribution of participants on apprenticeship training programmes
by duration as determined by Level, France (1996) and the Netherlands
(1999/2000)


NVQ equivalent level 2 3 4 5

Duration (years):

 France 2 2 2 2
 Netherlands 2-3 2-4 3-4 -

Distribution of Apprentices:

 France (%) 64 28 5 3
 Netherlands (%) 55 45 [a]



(a)In the Netherlands 45 per cent are at levels 3 and 4.