Journal of Vocational Education & Training Modern apprenticeships ...

1 downloads 0 Views 73KB Size Report
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,. UK ... devoted by different TECs to Modern Apprenticeships vary quite widely, but.
This article was downloaded by: [195.69.160.14] On: 24 March 2014, At: 15:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vocational Education & Training Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

Modern apprenticeships: filling the skills gap? a

David Gray & Mark Morgan

a

a

University of Surrey , Guildford, United Kingdom Published online: 12 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: David Gray & Mark Morgan (1998) Modern apprenticeships: filling the skills gap?, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 50:1, 123-134, DOI: 10.1080/13636829800200038 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636829800200038

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1998

Modern Apprenticeships: filling the skills gap?

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT In the United Kingdom, the Modern Apprenticeship scheme is financed and managed largely by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) which are regionally based. The article reports on a study carried out amongst a sample of TECs which examined their financial commitment to Modern Apprenticeships, and their views on the responsiveness of employers and trainees to the scheme. The study found that the funds devoted by different TECs to Modern Apprenticeships vary quite widely, but in general, were minimal compared with money devoted to unemployment containment strategies such as Youth Training Schemes. It is concluded that, unless there is both robust financial commitment to apprenticeship training and a scheme which is national, rather than local in focus, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom will produce a labour force capable of competing with our European trading partners.

Introduction The United Kingdom education system has been criticised for failing to address what has been termed the low skills equilibrium in the United Kingdom economy (Chitty, 1991; Whiteside, 1992) and accused of being the root cause of the country’s comparative failings, what Esland (1991) criticises as a simplistic monocausal explanation. With sharpening international competition, and with it the need to restructure significant sections of British industry, greater emphasis is now being put upon transferable “social, organisational and computing skills” (Soskice, 1994). Increasingly, there is a need for “thinking, creative and adaptable workers”. Evans et al (1997) raise the concern that the current, largely voluntary, system of post-16 education and training, may continue to prove inadequate in terms of raising the quality of young people’s foundation learning. They contend that reasons for the United Kingdom’s poor national performance include: low expectations of what young people can achieve; an education system which produces young people who are 123

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

disillusioned with formal learning; a widespread belief that many young people are destined for unemployment or low-skilled work; a cynicism about the poor quality of government-financed training schemes for the unemployed. The question which will be addressed in this article, is whether Modern Apprenticeships, one of the latest initiatives concerned with enhancing the United Kingdom’s skill base, are to be regarded as part of the solution to the low skills equilibrium, or merely the latest in a line of misconceived Youth Training schemes. Youth Opportunity Schemes (YOPs) and Youth Training Schemes (YTS) of the early 1980s, largely supplanted the former (pre-1980) traditional apprenticeship schemes, but came under attack from those who believed they were little more than a means of reducing the unemployment figures. Youngsters, argue Clarke and Willis (1984), “... expressed their lack of faith in these schemes, [and] their hostility at being used as cheap labour”. Acknowledging these shortfalls Hodkinson & Sparkes (1995) argue that: ever since the 1970s there has been an almost universal agreement ... that not only was British VET largely inadequate, but also that its dramatic improvement was a necessary condition for the country’s future economic prosperity. (pp. 189-190) The need for quality training becomes more apparent as Europe moves towards increasing economic integration, necessitating the need for the recognition of qualifications outside of workers’ home state. Indeed, discussing the socio-economic context of vocational training in a European context, Gordon (1995) points out that “traditional apprenticeship[s] tended to train craft workers in skills which they would need and keep throughout their life ...” (p. 278), whereas a modern workforce, faced with an ever changing work environment, needs flexible, transferable skills such as communication, application of number, information technology and problem solving. In November 1993 the Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, announced in the annual budget the Government’s intention to introduce Modern Apprenticeships as a means of addressing the country’s need for technicians and supervisors, with the aim of “... equip[ping] Britain with a truly world class workforce” (Widdecome, 1994, p. 4). Following a trial period, Modern Apprenticeships were introduced in England, in September 1995. This article seeks to analyse the significance of Modern Apprenticeships within the United Kingdom’s training structure and, in doing so, makes reference to recent studies, including international comparisons of apprenticeship systems, and includes a qualitative small research project analysing the views of the organisations largely responsible for the implementation of Modern Apprenticeships in the United Kingdom, the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs).

124

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

The Modern Apprenticeship Framework Modern Apprenticeships are not time served (like the old, traditional apprenticeships). Whilst the time span is, in principle, flexible, they are envisaged to take around three years with apprentices working towards their NVQ level 3, with the option to further their studies to NVQ level 4 or even university entry for the most ambitious. Modern Apprenticeships are intended for 16- and 17-year-old school leavers, although entry is open to anyone who can complete by the age of 25, and are open to both sexes. Accelerated Modem Apprenticeships (aMAs) were develop out of a concern for the rigid age requirements for entry into ‘traditional’ (British) apprenticeship schemes, and became operational from September 1995 for l8- to 19-year-olds. However, due to an apparent lack of interest in aMAs, MAs and aMAs merged in April 1996. Instead, skilled status relies upon the apprentice achieving the targets laid down by the respective Industry Training Organisations (ITOs), who may or may not give accreditation for prior learning. The exception is the pub trade, where age requirements for working behind a bar exist in law. In this case, 18 is the minimum legal age requirement for entry into an apprentice scheme rather than accelerated scheme. Modern Apprenticeships are built around a conceptual framework developed by Industrial Lead Bodies (ILBs) and ITOs, the latter setting national standards relevant to their respective industries. Once developed, they are accredited by the DfEE. However, the frameworks are flexible enough to meet the specific needs of local industry. The sector frameworks set the standards to be attained, but actual training programmes can be modified to meet the requirements of a particular company. Training is provided on-the-job by employers (overseen by the local TEC [LEC in Scotland], who provides funding) and off-the-job by the NVQ approved centres or local colleges. Modern Apprenticeships begin with a contractual agreement between the local TEC (which provides the funding), the apprentice and the employer. This obliges all parties to ensure their part in the agreement is met; the training pledge is signed by the apprentice and the employer, the latter undertaking to:

x Employ the apprentice with the intention of continuing employment after training. x Provide assistance in securing alternative employment due to redundancy. x Provide reasonable experience, facilitate training to achieve objectives specified in the training plan (City and Guilds of London Institute, 1996).

125

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

Each area of employment has appointed an ITO, or lead body, whose role it is to specify the training requirements within their professional field of work, which are then used as guidelines by employers for training purposes. This includes the stipulation of entry requirements. Lead bodies form a partnership between TECs or Local Enterprise Councils (LECs), who in turn contract the training out to colleges or private training organisations. In the early stage of the scheme, employers are under no obligation to employ apprentices. Now, however, under new contracts, new and existing trainees have to be transferred to ‘employed’ status. They may, if they wish, take them on as unwaged trainees, in which case apprentices receive an allowance from the local TEC which employers are expected to ‘top up’. An International Comparison: vocational training in Germany To evaluate the United Kingdom Modern Apprenticeship scheme, it is useful to compare it with other European training systems. Germany has been taken as an apposite example. As Bash & Green (1995) point out, traditionally, Britain and Germany have enjoyed similar forms of apprenticeship training, where part-time vocational education has been combined with on-the-job training and work experience. This pattern has also been associated with the predominance of occupational labour markets, that is, the criterion for membership is the recognised apprenticeship qualification itself, Bash & Green (1995), however, also argue that since the 1960s the patterns of training for the two countries have sharply diverged. One result has been, as Brown & Evans (1994) argue, that the German Vocational Education and Training (VET) system now has a highly successful apprenticeship scheme that is held in high esteem as a provider of top quality training leading to a high skills equilibrium. There exists in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), they argue, a ‘training culture’ in that the Government, employers and young people themselves are committed to high quality training, and value training in terms of future prospects. In the United Kingdom the opposite is true; there is little commitment to training from employers and young people have become demoralised due to lack of employment prospects in many industrial sectors. Furthermore, as long as employers have an incentive not to train, or youngsters are given no incentive to follow a training route, this trend is likely to continue. Thus, they argue that whilst employers are allowed to take advantage of cheap labour, and young people are enticed out of education and training by the lure of short-term financial gains, the low skills equilibrium will continue. Under the present German system, following compulsory education at 16, young people have the option to follow an academic or vocational route, although nearly 70% following vocational training (Brown et al, 126

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

1994). Alternatively, they can opt to take pre-vocational courses (BGJs) which offer an alternative route into vocational training, although they offer no guarantee of a place on an apprenticeship scheme. Apprenticeships are open to all young people. Training takes around two to three-and-a-half years during which apprentices normally spend 4 days in the workplace and 1 day in college, or Berufsschule. The training curriculum is devised by the Federal Institute for Vocational Training, and controlled at a local level by a cohort of industrial bodies, trade unions and teachers. This, however, is where their similarities with Modern Apprenticeships end. Under the German system, on-the-job training is undertaken by qualified instructors who are obliged to keep up-to-date with new developments, thus ensuring that training is also contemporary, and every effort is made to ensure the equipment and facilities used are ‘state of the art’. Companies who lack the means to provide such facilities use training centres or even other companies to complement their training. Once training is complete, skilled workers have the opportunity to further their qualifications and make themselves eligible for promotion into supervisory/management positions. Otherwise, following 2 years’ work experience they can further their training up to ‘Meister’ level, for which government loans are available. This allows them to become trainers themselves or set up in business (Meister-level qualifications are required by law in order to set up in business in certain professions such a Blacksmith, Plumber and Motor Vehicle Mechanic). Thus, Germany possesses a nationally co-ordinated training system which appears to be valued by both employers and trainees alike. Indeed, there is a sense here in which the different sides of industry work together in cooperation. The role of German employers in training is not the product of an unrestrained free enterprise culture. There is a partnership between state and employers in which trade unions have also played a role. UK Modern Apprenticeships: national or notional? It could be argued that, as currently constructed, the Modern Apprenticeship system in the United Kingdom bears little relationship to the training systems of Germany. Brown & Evans (1994), argue, for example, that any national training policy needs to be what they have termed ‘multi-factorial’. This, essentially, means that the youth labour market must be restricted in terms of ensuring employers cannot employ people under the age of 18 unless commitment to training is guaranteed (through a track record of training), and by restricting the youth labour market “... to exclude access to jobs without training”. This does not appear to be happening in the United Kingdom where there is a deep-rooted tendency for young people to commit themselves to seeking paid employment as early as possible and for employers to recruit at 16 127

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

(Whiteside, 1992). Brown & Evans (1994) also argue that governments should build on the commitment to training of some employers (through apprenticeship and careership), but not pretend that all employers are so committed. This means removal of incentives or pressure on less committed employers to provide broad based foundation training. Modern Apprenticeships, however, are not discriminating in this way because they are open to all employers, irrespective of the quality of their training record. Brown & Evans also stress that equal emphasis should be placed on processes and outcomes, whereas under the NVQ accreditation system, it is the measurement of outcomes that has overwhelming priority.

The only area where Modern Apprenticeships appear to fit the Brown & Evans (1994) criteria is that at least there is provision for a differentiated policy between occupational areas (i.e. not aiming purely at broad based transferable skills). We have seen that a national framework is established through NVQ accreditation, but that individual lead bodies can tailor the schemes to a local framework. It remains to be seen, however, where the balance between the national and local policy-making lies. There are plans to expand the Modern Apprenticeship scheme and to make it one of the cornerstones of the United Kingdom’s approach to skills training, both in terms of the number of apprentices and their level of attainment. Whilst there are presently around 270,000 youngsters on residual Youth Training schemes, only about 13,000 or 5% of trainees complete their training having attained an NVQ level 3, an A-level equivalent qualification. It is proposed that 40,000 or 27% of all trainees under the Modern Apprenticeship scheme will attain level 3 (Corney, 1994), an ambitious target. In the light of the significance of Modern Apprenticeships, it was decided to carry out a small research study amongst the organisations which fund and which are central to organising the scheme, TECs. The research sought to analyse: x the scale of TECs’ commitment to Modern Apprenticeships; x the popularity of Modern Apprenticeships amongst employers and trainees; x quality assurance procedures for evaluating training; x the extent to which Modern Apprenticeships are likely to produce a high skilled workforce.

128

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

Research Methodology The research was carried out amongst a purposive sample of Training and Enterprise Councils, and comprised, primarily, a quantitative study, supported by discrete elements of qualitative data. The aim of the research was not to attain results of statistical significance, but to establish, through the use of detailed questionnaires, the views of TECs, as key players, towards the Modern Apprenticeship system. It was also hoped to uncover data that might be indicative of important trends and point to issues that other researchers may wish to follow up. Whilst the regional and national nature of the TECs lends itself to broad-based, whole population sampling, the target sample was restricted to areas where industry (manufacturing and service) serves as the main source of employment. For this reason, largely rural areas such as the Southwest and the West Country, were not targeted. Eleven TECs were therefore selected as part of the sample, of which six replied to the questionnaire. Two respondents represented two large, industrial conurbations. In order to maintain confidentiality, references that would help to identify individual TECs have been omitted. Results Without exception, all the TECs in the study stated that employers do not have the training resources in place to take on Modem Apprentices. Lack of employers’ finance was one factor given by the TECs to explain this. The percentage of TECs’ annual budgets allocated to training (including Modern Apprenticeships) ranged from about 5-22% (see Table I). It appears, however, that the most prevalent figure is around 5-6%. What the data reveals is quite a wide discrepancy between the proportion of TEC budgets devoted to youth training in general and Modern Apprenticeships in particular. This appears to be determined largely by local circumstances (and labour markets) and the policy decisions of the TECs themselves.

Training in the workplace is monitored on a regular basis (usually quarterly) by a fairly diffuse range of organisations comprising: ITOs, awarding bodies (City and Guilds, RSA and so forth), contract managers employed by the TECs and training providers, and employers. In terms of monitoring the quality of Modern Apprenticeship training, most TECs did this largely through personal or team visits, plus some evaluation returns from apprentices and employers. The frequency of these monitoring visits varies from every 6-8 weeks, to quarterly, depending on the ‘risk band’ of the sector. Interestingly, it was not 129

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

clear from the returns what proportion of apprentices were visited, but perhaps revealingly, one TEC commented that it was 5 – 10% annually.

Training and Enterprise Council

Proportion of Annual Budget allocated to the provision of youth training

Proportion of Annual budget allocated to the provision of Modern Apprenticeships

TEC A

33%

5-8%

TEC B

N/A

N/A

TEC C

100%

Integral part of youth training

TEC D

50%

5%

TEC E

65%

6%

TEC F

56%

22%

Table I. Percentage of TEC budgets devoted to youth training and Modern Apprenticeships.

As far as the response of both employers and potential trainees to the Modern Apprenticeship scheme is concerned, views were quite mixed. TECs were asked to comment on the responses of local employers and trainees on a sliding scale from 1 to 10. In the case of only two of the six TECs were responses positive (and then only marginally) about both of these groups. Perhaps significantly both of these TECs were based in large, industrial conurbations. In terms of the commitment of employers to using the Modern Apprenticeships to generate high calibre training, most TECs believed that they were moderately keen. The one respondent who felt that employers were very keen on such training added the provisio that this depended on them not having to pay for it! This factor may be linked to the fact that few of the TECs contacted had any intention of linking Modern Apprenticeship training with NVQ levels 4 or 5, presumably one of the bases for establishing high quality training. One TEC commented that incentives are offered to employers to encourage continued developmental activity, but the ‘bottom line’ is that it is the employer who is the TEC’s customer, and not the apprentice. One difficulty, is that employers may be looking for more immediate solutions to their skills gap problems, whereas Modern Apprenticeships are perceived as rather long term. From the perspective of trainees themselves another TEC commented: MAs aim to provide industry with highly skilled people. Currently, there are more youngsters being encouraged by schools to remain in the 6th 130

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

form than there are leaving school at 16. Of those who leave school, only a few have the true capacity to succeed in an MA. Until young people have equal access to information regarding all post-16 options, MAs will appear to be failing.

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

Discussion It appears from the data that, in contrast to the apprenticeship schemes established in countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom system of Modern Apprenticeships is, at best, somewhat fragmented. Putting a positive gloss on it, it could be argued that the differing proportions of TEC annual budgets allocated to Modern Apprenticeship training across different regions reflect variations in local labour markets. There may also be a positive correlation between favourable attitudes to Modern Apprenticeships and the industrial density of the area covered by the TEC. Given the fact that most industrial workers live in the major conurbations, this may be a hopeful sign. It does appear, however, that currently, the sums allocated to the scheme are relatively small compared with the provision of youth training in general. Much of the latter, of course, is still devoted to the much criticised Youth Training Schemes. In this sense, United Kingdom training is still reactive and focused on unemployment schemes (Welfare to Work may be yet another example) rather than proactive and concentrating on skills development for the future. While it appears that in countries such as Germany, the emphasis is on quality in training, the United Kingdom is still struggling to move in this direction. Training schemes are certainly evaluated but there appear to be relatively weak formal structures in place. While the data here were incomplete, if the policy of one of the TECs is the norm and only 5-10% of trainees are visited, then this does raise some questions about the depth to which the schemes are monitored. Would one, for example, be so sanguine about this proportion of trainee teachers receiving formal visits from the training organisation to assess their teaching practice? Quality of training will also be determined by the skill level that is targeted. Here, one of the concerns of Unwin & Wellington (1995) was that if Modern Apprenticeships begin to attract large numbers of academically gifted young people, they might become a threat to school sixth forms and to further education colleges. It appears from the data, however, that the view of’ some of the TECs themselves is that they do not consider this to be the case, commenting on their own perception that most of those leaving school at 16 to enter work full-time, do not have the capacity to undertake a Modern Apprenticeship. If this is true, it is a sad reflection on the current pre-16 educational system. It could be the case, therefore, that, in contrast to, say, Germany, the United Kingdom is developing an academic (the A level ‘gold standard’) culture, but not a training culture.

131

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

Certainly, the survey seems to disappoint the hope expressed by Unwin & Wellington (1995), that the Modern Apprenticeship scheme would provide a reconstructed work-based alternative route to A levels for post-16 young people who do not want to remain in full-time education. It may also disappoint the hopes of Dearing (1996) for parity of esteem between education and training. Since, according to the evidence of the TECs in the survey, the response of both local employers and trainees to Modern Apprenticeships was rather mixed, this perception of the scheme may reflect real underlying difficulties in terms of funding and the quality of training. If this is the case, this may have serious long-term consequences for the United Kingdom economy. This raises a fundamental question about the underlying market philosophy upon which Modern Apprenticeships are based. Certainly, the recent work of Evans et al (1997) suggests that market forces cannot provide a sound basis for a workable national education and training system. They argue that a broad-based skills economy cannot be produced by full-time schooling and mass higher education alone, it also requires effective work-based education and training which embraces academic, vocational and practical elements. Conclusions If it is true that the United Kingdom economy requires highly skilled workers with adaptable and transferable skills, then Modern Apprenticeships may not, in their current form, be the answer. We have seen that the main organisers of Modern Apprenticeship schemes, TECs, are sceptical of the quality of young people applying for training. The intention is that 27% of apprentices will achieve NVQ level 3 (and even this may prove ambitious), whereas a highly skilled workforce will need at least a proportion of its workers achieving levels 4 or even 5. There is little evidence that this will happen. Furthermore, while it is still early days, the funding and scale of Modern Apprenticeships are nowhere near adequate to bridge the skills gap in the United Kingdom. In principle, money for YTS programmes may yet be channelled across into Modern Apprenticeships, but decisions here lie within individual TECs, and are therefore not nationally co-ordinated. The United Kingdom system is strongly influenced by the vagaries of the market and all that it implies in terms of the decisions of individual employers to take on trainees. However, it may also mean that some employers, with no track record of training, do take advantage of the scheme. As Brown & Evans (1994) show, unless access to pre-18 labour is restricted, there will always be unscrupulous employers willing to take advantage of cheap labour (as well as young people willing to offer it). Are Modern Apprenticeships the answer to the United Kingdom’s skills gap? It seems likely that they may require much more robust 132

MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS

financial backing and a national direction with an emphasis on quality. Only if these prerequisites are put in place, will Modern Apprenticeships make a contribution towards providing the United Kingdom with a labour force capable of competing on a international stage. Correspondence Dr David Gray, School of Educational Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, United Kingdom. References

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

Bash, L. & Green, A. (1995) Yearbook of Education: youth, education and work. London: Kogan Page. Brown, A. & Evans, K. (1994) Changing the training culture: lessons from Anglo-German comparisons of vocational education and training, British Journal of Education and Work, 7(2), pp. 6-7. Brown, A., Evans, K., Blackman, S. & Germon, S. (1994) Key Workers: technical and training mastery in the workplace. Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. Chitty, C. (1991) Post-16 Education: studies in access and achievement. London: Kogan Page. City and Guilds of London Institute (1996) City and Guilds Modern Apprenticeships London: City and Guilds of London Institute. Corney, M. (1994) A place for the modern apprentice, Training Tomorrow, February, pp.13-16. Clarke, J. & Willis, P. (1984) Introduction, in I. Bates, J. Clarke, P. Cohn, D. Finn, R. Moore & P. Willis (Eds) Schooling for the Dole? The New Vocationalism. London: Macmillan. Dearing, R. (1996) Review of Qualifications for 16 – 19 Year Olds: summary report. London: SCAA Publications. Esland, G. (1991) Education, Training and Employment. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley. Evans, K., Hodkinson, P., Keep, F., Maguire, M., Raffe, D., Rainbird, H., Senker, P. & Unwin, L. (1997) Working to Learn: a work-based route to learning for young people. London: Institute of Personnel and Development Gordon, J. (1995) An innovative approach to the comparison of qualifications in Europe: the regional perspective, European Journal of Education, 30, pp. 277-293. Hodkinson, P. & Sparks, A. C. (1995) Markets and vouchers: the inadequacy of individualist policies for vocational education and training in England and Wales, Journal of Education Policy, 10, pp. 189-207. National Curriculum Council Further Education Unit (1993) Curriculum Perspective: 14-19 Education in Schools and Colleges, March 1993. York: National Curriculum Council.

133

DAVID GRAY & MARK MORGAN

Soskice, D. (1994) United Kingdom’s wrong turn on training, Financial Times, 6 January. Unwin, L. & Wellington, J. (1995) Reconstructing the work-based route: lessons from the modern apprenticeship, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 47, pp. 337-352. Whiteside, T. (1992) The alliance and the shaping of the agenda, in T. Whiteside, A. Sutton & T. Everton (Eds) 16-19 Changes in Education and Training, London: David Fulton.

Downloaded by [195.69.160.14] at 15:05 24 March 2014

Widdecome, A. (1994) Modern Apprenticeships. An Introduction by Ann Widdecome MP, Under-Secretary of State for Employment, Newscheck, 4(8), June, p. 4.

134