says Michael Davis, Managing Director of CFE
From the employer’s perspective a cursory reading of the Conservative’s recent policy green paper ‘Building Skills, Transforming Lives’ leaves you with the takeaway of, ditch Train to Gain and spend the money on apprenticeships. Cue a defence of Train to Gain and hadn’t Government already committed to expanding apprenticeships anyway? The Conservative position is that Train to Gain has ‘essentially created a ‘tick-box’ culture in which much of the scheme simply assesses work already being done’ and that the programme is predominately being spent on ‘assessment rather than teaching’. They’ll be plenty of supporters of Train to Gain out there to challenge this but let’s go with the assertion for a moment.
The Conservative prognosis is to see Train to Gain as a failing programme because of its focus on assessment over teaching, secondly the provision on offer is too ‘low level’ and not what employers want, and finally it is funding what employers would have paid for themselves. Set aside the contradictory argument in the second and third point and consistent with current Government policy the analysis of the Conservatives is to see the failures in the supply side of Train to Gain, ignoring any potential culpability of demand. For example, is the emphasis on assessing rather than learning not the result of a demand-led service as employers insist that any ‘down time’ for the delivery of Train to Gain is kept to an absolute minimum. Or that the take up of Train to Gain by employers is concentrated in those ‘low level’ sectors for where one of the biggest drivers to participate is in response to regulatory requirements?
More importantly though is that whilst the Conservative policy position will have both its supporters and its detractors, what risks being missed is the opportunity to learn what happens when a policy has more supply side incentive to perform than demand. The pressures on the LSC, colleges and providers to deliver Train to Gain learner volumes are considerable and will only ever increase through what is known as Plan for Growth. On the other hand the need for employers to participate is no more than commercial or regulatory pressures dictate. The result is that we have increasing risk of an over supply of Train to Gain provision relative to employer demand and as we all learnt in Economics 101, if supply is greater than demand price falls - in this case the value of Train to Gain to employees and employers risks being devalued.
The standard response is to see this lack of demand as one of ‘wrong product’ but again basic economics gets in the way. Demand is both a want and an ability to pay for a good or service, yet in most instances when reference is made to Train to Gain failing to deliver the higher level skills that employers want there is no compelling evidence that the want is backed by a willingness to pay.
Ultimately the value of Train to Gain as a policy instrument to kick start greater employer investment in training towards a ‘high skill, high value’ economy becomes devalued because the aspiration of supply is not matched by real employer demand. This is the lesson to learn from Train to Gain as both Government and the Conservatives fall over themselves to demonstrate the greatest level of future commitment to expanding apprenticeships. The commitment of Government and its agencies towards expanding apprenticeships is far easier to secure relative to that of employer demand, particularly as we enter more challenging economic conditions. So whether you are a ‘backer’ or ‘scrapper’ of Train to Gain your decision should come second to a more thorough assessment of the collective ambitions of employer demand for skills.
Michael Davis is Managing Director of CFE, Chair of Governors at Leicester College and Chairman of Lastolite.