Certificate of disapproval

“The fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” Aristotle said that, and if he’s right, construction should be afraid. Very afraid. At the moment it would appear that construction’s apprenticeship system is bureaucratic and is being bypassed by both the industry and young people. What’s going on?

First, a great deal has changed over the years. In the 1970s industry had 100,000 apprentices, but this figure has now more than halved. Also, in the past it was largely left for employers to decide if they needed an apprentice or not. Now its more or less in the hands of government-funded agencies. Only a small number of apprentices are trained in so called “employer led” programmes.

The main problem is that many trainees do not last the duration and fail to complete their training or, worse, drop out of construction altogether. Reasons for this vary, but the extent of the problems were outlined in a damning report by the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) earlier this year.

The document, Building the Future: Skills Training in Construction and Building Services Engineering, is grim reading. It highlights low achievement rates and poorly qualified entrants. Check the statistics: 40,000 new recruits want to join the industry – and just over a third will complete their training. Not a pretty picture.

Industry training provider CITB-ConstructionSkills did not fare too well either. Its overall achievement rate was put at 25% for 2004. The CITB disputes the figure and says it’s closer to 40%. Either way, the figures aren’t great.

According to the report’s author David Cormican, the apprenticeship framework leaves a lot to be desired. It consists of many parts and failure to achieve one part results in a non-pass and no full apprenticeship award. Proof of competence is achieved through NVQs – a portfolio-based system – as well as a technical certificate, health and safety training and key skills. “All this is asked of learners who quite often enter the industry through informal channels and with low expectations and qualifications,” he adds.

A vicious circle

Cormican, who is a fellow of the CIOB, says the consequences of poor achievement rates could prove to be irreparable. “Many employers and training providers thought that high non-achievement rates could eventually diminish the status of apprenticeships within the industry,” he says.

He also argues that progression from foundation to advanced apprenticeships and from there to further study is minimal. This he attributes to poorly qualified entrants as well as the superficial content of technical certificates and the demise of specific courses designed to bridge the craft/technician/management gap.

Industry has to shoulder some of the blame. The report alarmingly states that as many as three-quarters of employers are not even involved in training apprentices. It’s hard to believe that a large number of construction employers do not even rate the benefits of training, believing it to have minimal impact on turnover, employment or profit margins.

And if that’s not enough, many employers have little, if any, involvement in training and assessment. Some don’t even understand the requirements of NVQ. NVQ level 2 is now widely accepted as the gold standard for achieving competencies in the traditional crafts. But there is a growing argument that this standard is too low and should be raised to level 3. Others believe NVQs are the root of the problem – more than half of those working in the industry do not even have level 2.

NVQ: Not Very Qualified?

Chris Tooke, chief examiner for the Institute of Carpenters (IOC), feels that NVQs are hurting the industry. “Since the introduction of NVQ in the building industry, we are not properly training students in the time allowed. There is too much emphasis on getting them through as quickly as possible, not enough time training in all building aspects and too much unnecessary paperwork.”

CITB-ConstructionSkills also recognises some of the problems outlined in the report. Operations director Howard Maylard says the low completion rates are mainly because many apprentices are not keen to return to college to sit their key skills test for numeracy and literacy once they have achieved their NVQ and are earning good wages on site.

He adds that the number of apprenticeships on offer from the industry has been greatly limited by the extent of subcontracting and self-employment in the industry. However the issue is less acute in Scotland, where traditional employment procedures dominate.

Non-achievement rates could diminish the status of apprenticeships in the industry

David Cormican, Adult learning inspectorate

CIOB president Allan McMullen also paints an unflattering picture of the system. His comments in reference to Northern Ireland note how times have changed: “Now it’s not how long does it take for you to become competent, it’s how long does it take for your competence to be signed off by a manager.”

McMullen wants a system in place that takes into account the needs of the young person who wants to train in construction, instead of just looking at it from a resources and productivity perspective.

Something also needs to be done to tackle the image that those wanting a career in construction do not need qualifications. He says: “Problems start deep down in the education system. Apprentices in craft occupations in construction need people to read and count, but the impression I think has been given in the past if you can’t achieve academically at least you can go into construction industry. Which is simply not true.”

Despite the pitfalls, there is still a large interest in becoming an apprentice. Cormican’s report suggests many colleges and training providers have been oversubscribed in areas such as carpentry and joinery. But he adds: “The main constraints on meeting the demand are the lack of workshop capacity in colleges, the difficulties in recruiting skilled craft teachers and the scarcity of employers prepared to take on apprentices or provide work placements.”

Despite the problems, industry is trying to put things right with the development of the of the Construction Site Certification Scheme or CSCS card. This ensures an individual is suitably qualified and undergone health and safety training.

All card holders should have one before going on site. However, Cormican says the success of the scheme is mixed. Despite more than 600,000 cards being issued, only 8.5% of workers in the popular areas of bricklaying, carpentry and plastering or painting have one.

However, McMullen believes a card system is the way ahead. His solution is to have a national card registration scheme like the CSCS, where different colour cards would depict the level of training. For example a red would depict a trainee, blue for those who have NVQ level 2, rising to a black card for those who achieve NVQ level 5 or higher.

Such a move needs full acceptance by industry and a clear understanding that no qualification means no card. It sounds great in theory but, unfortunately, a card system is open to abuse - as long as you know how and where to get one. In an article for Cutting Edge, the IOC magazine, Tooke wrote although CSCS cards help remove the cowboy element of construction, problems still exist. He wrote that the cards are “open to corruption as these [cards] are easily available if you know where to go”.

What else is being done? Maylard points to a sector skills agreement between the Major Contractors Group and the Major Home Builders Group to take on more apprentices.

But even this appears to be hitting the rails. Building magazine quoted an industry source as saying: “The housebuilding sector has not delivered the number of placements it had promised. They are falling far short, and may even be below the number offered last year.” The CITB denies these claims.

A little… but too late?

On a more positive note a workshop with the government’s apprenticeship task force and the Construction Confederation resulted in an agreement with construction companies to take part in pilots for a new programme-led apprenticeship initiative. This will involve full-time college students being placed with subcontractors and self employed in their supply chains. They will obtain on-site work experience they need to complete their qualification. This initiative has been welcomed by the Learning Skills Council and funding has been secured.

Maylard also points to a conference for further education colleges contracted to industry to discuss how they could increase framework completions.

But are these efforts a little too late for apprenticeships to reclaim their glory days? Let’s hope not for construction’s sake, or an apprenticeship in construction may no longer be worth the paper it’s written on.