Looking again at the English apprenticeships, a particular piece jumped out from the L&D Practitioner apprenticeship:
Entry Requirements:
Whilst any entry requirements will be a matter for individual employers, typically an apprentice will have an area of technical, vocational or behavioural expertise in which the organisation needs others to acquire through training.
This is an interesting statement as it suggests this apprenticeship is an SME to learning practitioner conversion programme (or at least the standard has been written with this in mind).
As someone who has previously trained SMEs in instructional design, eLearning techniques and other competency areas it is interesting that a full apprenticeship may be in place for this. This leads to a few thoughts for the apprenticeship:
- SME conversion as an apprenticeship is overkill, especially if the 20% time rule is enforced as most people coming in from a technical expertise area will have inherent opportunity cost of their time for the organisation that goes above 80% of their existing salary.
- It may be more suitable if the expertise being sought, and converted into a learning orientated mindset, is something like graphic design, multimedia production, etc.
- As a route for people new to business the suggestion, therefore, is that L&D is a career you wouldn’t choose as a starting point. I recently had the L&D labour market explained to me as particularly challenging for job seekers as “L&D is the nice bit of HR that everyone in HR actually wants to do” so the ignoring in the above statement of L&D as a HR specialism is an interesting one (should L&D be part of HR is of course a long running debate). Yet the approach of the employers on this trailblazer, and perhaps the influence of aligning to CIPD membership, is that L&D remains not a career but something you can find an interest in as your career develops. This perhaps is not a bad thing?
As the entry point to work
A challenge, and source for much criticism of the government’s apprentice reforms, has been the shift from apprenticeships being just for new/young workers to upskilling and ongoing career development for all, for example with the suggestion that too many starts are in the management area.
What you would hope many apprenticeships would actually be used for, in the current climate, are more suitable ways into professions, for young people, than a university route. Indeed, if companies could really adopt them, rather than the huge cost of university options, the apprenticeship reforms will have been a success. Professional bodies, by shifting certification from degrees (see the US equivalent here for L&D) to apprenticeships (through the ‘trailblazer’ standards), have become more realistic about the future prospects of their future members. Breaking barriers to entry for any professions is of course worthwhile – as has been pointed out for elected officials this week!
Overall
So it seems we are in an interesting stage – will the L&D apprentices be adopted? If so, will they be for new workers or converting other skill sets. There seem to be arguments for both but I have to remain hopefully they will actually be used for people to come into the profession without the university costs (that many of use have had to accept in the past).
Whose Education Is It Anyway? 
Hi Ian – this is a useful review as usual – I think it needs to be for both – for so many people they still want a qualification that they recognise in line with a University and people are put off by the term apprenticeship this is still a blocker for people seeing this as an equitable route and not just for the ‘trades’, so if we can encourage L&D professionals to take this route this will help. Jenny