Accelerated apprenticeships: Apprentice, employer and teaching staff perceptions

Australia’s continued buoyant economy means that demand for skilled workers in many occupations is outstripping supply. To remedy this imbalance federal and state governments are implementing various strategies. These include raising levels of skilled migration, programs to improve the basic skills of people without formal quali?cations and accelerated apprenticeships. The last of these is the subject of this report.

While apprenticeships are a readily identi?able way to meet skills needs, there are concerns that current models are not delivering, with high non-completion rates in some industries and a general dif?culty in attracting apprentices. Accelerated apprenticeships, which reduce the typical four-year duration of a trade apprenticeship, may address some of these issues.

Accelerated apprenticeships: Apprentice, employer and teaching staff perceptions by Victor Callan focuses on pilots of accelerated apprenticeships in the automotive trades in Queensland. Callan examined the perceptions of apprentices, employers and teachers of the strengths and shortcomings of both traditional and accelerated approaches.

Key messages

• The traditional model of apprenticeship training is still well regarded. It is not failing but it does need to evolve to remain useful and relevant.

• In the automotive industry, at least, the establishment of certi?cate II training within the certi?cate III is a key aspect of the design of accelerated apprenticeships.

– This allows students willing to do repetitive service tasks, and who may prefer to exit their training early, to do so with an industry quali?cation that matches an essential element of the trade.

• Accelerated models offer obvious bene?ts but they will usually be more expensive, imposing additional costs as well as pressures upon apprentices, employers and trainers.

• To achieve results in shorter time frames, accelerated apprenticeships must incorporate innovative up-front training; intensive pre-apprenticeship training; the full application of recognition of prior learning; intensive forms of off-the-job-delivery; and industry investment in workplace mentors.

Readers interested in employment-based learning models should also see Effective models of employer-based training by Sarojni Choy et al. (NCVER 2008).

Tom Karmel
Managing Director, NCVER

The traditional model of apprenticeship is under pressure. For some time we have seen high noncompletion rates across states, difficulties in attracting new apprentices in areas of major skills shortages and debates about the need for alternative models, including more accelerated forms of apprenticeships for Australian industries.

The focus of the current project was upon recent pilots of accelerated apprenticeships for various trades in the automotive industry in Queensland. This report examines the implications of these accelerated models for the apprentice, employer and training provider. In analysing the strengths and areas for future development of both traditional and more accelerated models, the components of an ideal model are put forward for further debate.

In total, 37 interviews were undertaken between March and June 2007. The special focus of interviews was with individuals involved with, or knowledgeable about, traditional and more accelerated apprenticeships in the automotive industry in Queensland and Victoria. Two research questions were addressed: one focused on what a shorter or accelerated competency-based apprenticeship model might look like; the other considered the implications of such a model.

The perceived strengths of the traditional apprenticeship model were mostly centred upon the provision of a well-defined and structured training program. Based upon a competency model, the training was seen at its best when it brought together in a partnership the skills and experiences of employers and teachers. The challenge was seen to be getting the right mix for the industry of the on- and off-the-job training. The traditional apprenticeship was working but needed to evolve more quickly.

The barriers to change in the traditional apprenticeship model were seen to be mostly the attitudes of employers and providers. Industry was seen to be its own worst enemy, with the strongly held view that ‘you need to do your time like we all did’. A fundamental concern was the integrity of the current model as a result of ill-considered change. On the other hand, the traditional model was seen to advantage employers and training providers more than apprentices. The move towards more flexible and shorter models was seen by some as well overdue and necessary to re-adjust this imbalance.

Looking at the perceived benefits of more accelerated models, apprentices reflected upon:

• achieving a qualification in a shorter time period, and so quicker access to higher wages

• assisting experienced but not formally qualified people to gain a formal qualification

• attracting more mature workers to a trade, as a consequence of the shorter time period and reduced financial and other costs to them and their families
  
  

• increasing the use of recognition of prior learning, which allowed earlier completion of training and the recognition of their prior industry experience. Recognition of prior learning is the recognition of competencies currently held, regardless of how, when or where the learning occurred, and this learning is counted towards the achievement of a qualification.
  
  

Employer benefits were associated with:

• an increased pool of qualified tradespersons
  
  

• apprentice training being undertaken more on the job with associated productivity benefits for their businesses
  
  

• more effective response to the greater levels of skill segmentation that are now occurring in their industries between routine and more specialist skill sets
  
  

• the increased productivity and morale of employees, who are now better trained, have qualified more quickly and who can access higher pay and better career paths.

Training providers reported that moving into accelerated models:

• extended their capabilities around the design and delivery of more flexible training, applying their skills around competency-based training, recognition of prior learning and closer industry partnering
  
  

• assisted in building better relationships with industry that had other spin-offs
  
  

• re-invigorated some apprenticeships where numbers were low
  
  

• developed their skills in relation to the provision of more consistent high-quality training and administration across all parts of apprenticeships, including school-based, on-the-job and off-the-job components.
  
  

There are also understandable concerns about the use of accelerated models. Apprentices mentioned the pressures associated with putting more time into completing study and assessment. Some learners did not cope. They had dropped out rather than move back to the more traditional model. Also, despite their acceleration, a few believed that employers would not sign off on the completed competencies.

Employers reported concerns about the quality of the apprentice being produced as a result of less on-the-job experience caused by the shorter time frame. There was also a reduced period to recover lost productivity from accelerated training. More effort was required by employers in supporting and managing the training of apprentices in the workplace, including, in some cases, through the provision of workplace mentors. Some felt that more attention was needed to screening practices to identify more suitable applicants. Once they had supported their apprentices in the accelerated process and to complete early, there was still the threat of poaching by other employers who did not train.

Training providers cited concerns about the potential for more attrition in an accelerated program, because of the pace of learning and assessment demands on the learners. In addition, the management of more intensive and flexible delivery required more coordination and cooperation between the apprentice, employers and training provider.

The establishment of certificate II training within certificate III training is a key aspect in the design of accelerated apprenticeships. This moves apprenticeships away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach that has been dominant in traditional apprenticeships. The certificate II component allows students with different levels of talent and motivation to exit with an industry qualification that allows them to complete essential and important roles in the workplace. It also provides many industries with what they need—skilled workers who are willing to do repetitive service that those fully qualified apprentices find to be an under-utilisation of their knowledge and skills. However, the trend to incorporate certificate II qualifications was seen by some providers to be adding to a deskilling of many trades.

Finally, current funding models did not match the reality that accelerated models required even lower student-to-staff ratios, with smaller classes and much more travel and administration in shorter time frames. This also had implications for employers, who had to dedicate staff resources to mentoring apprentices.

While there was a widely held view that it was not possible to apply the same accelerated model to all apprenticeships in all industries, there was general agreement that, based on the experiences to date with various pilots, there were some key elements that need to be brought together to make these new models work well. The major features of an ideal model include key decisions in the following areas:

• preparing the way—checking assumptions with apprentices, employers and teachers about the nature and demands of accelerated apprenticeships; selecting the most motivated apprentices, teachers and employers; establishing apprentice cohorts; and industry involvement in the design of the apprenticeship model
  
  

• training up-front—online delivery of underpinning knowledge, intensive pre-apprenticeship training, the full application of recognition of prior learning, and building in certificate II qualifications
  
  

• providing core elements—on-the-job delivery, off-the-job delivery, use of workplace mentors, and use of existing employer partnerships and networks
  
  

• supporting elements—linkages into school-based programs and pathways into more advanced training, field officer monitoring, and the establishment of competency-based wage progression.