Agenda item

1.    The Corporate Director – Education and Young People’s Services introduced this item and explained that it was a positive picture for apprenticeships.  There has been a slight dip in take up in 2012/13 for 16-18yr olds but this reflected a national trend.  Employers were considered to be enthusiastic and keen with good support being offered by the County Council, 150 schools had taken on apprenticeships.  The Council’s 14-24 strategy provided significant focus with scope for the roll-out of wide ranging apprenticeships becoming more readily available.  There was however a need to do more.  Support was in place for more vulnerable  young people to undertake apprenticeships and there was an expectation that all young people 16-18 would stay in schools or on apprenticeships programmes.  There was also a commitment in the troubled families programme to provide additional assistance to vulnerable young people. 

2.    A member requested a breakdown of the apprenticeship schemes across Kent, it was agreed that this would be provided.  It was noted that this could be skewed by a training provider in a locality there could be more apprentices in that area than in others. 

3.    It was considered difficult to engage with rural businesses and populations with regards to the apprenticeship scheme, a breakdown of rural engagement vs urban engagement was requested, along with an explanation of the steps taken to further engage with the rural businesses.  Mr Little explained that the breakdown was to district level, this would be provided.  10-12 engagement events had been held across all the districts to try to engage with harder to reach groups. 

4.    The majority of the Committee were pleased with report and the improvements in the apprenticeship service offered to young people across Kent, particularly the references to troubled families and vulnerable young people. 

5.    In response to a question Mr Leeson explained that there were two main reasons why there was a reduction in the takeup of apprenticeship schemes, one was difficulties around training providers no longer being available, the Education Funding Agency (EFA) would not fund places in provider locations which had been judged by Ofsted as inadequate.  Another reason was the national shift in the apprenticeship programme; however this was back on track for the future. The funding was subsidised through Government schemes and there was funding available through KCC schemes.  It was essential to continue to build strong relationships with employers. There had been changes in national legislation with funding going straight to employers the Council welcomed the stronger involvement in the design of the apprenticeship schemes. 

6.    One Member commented that, in his opinion, KCC’s commitment to apprenticeships was poor, he gave an example from his own division where there had been difficulties with monitoring and other areas.  It was proposed that this be discussed with the officers outside of the Scrutiny Committee meeting.  Officers were concerned about the example given; it would be followed up, however it was noted that there were a considerable number of contracts which had successfully employed apprentices with a detailed work experience plan.

7.    The Council considered it extremely desirable that, where there was the power to award contracts, companies would be expected to employ apprentices across Kent.

8.    Members were pleased that some of the recommendations from the Select Committee had been followed at a national level.  The Select Committee had heard from BT who used a model which might be useful for Kent to look at further. 

9.    In response to a question about the quality of advice and guidance provided Mr Leeson explained that Kent was in strong position; however it was understood that not all young people got the most impartial advice but this was improving.  An annual careers event had been held at the Kent County Showground which attracted 4000 young people. Schools were increasingly aware that they had to diversify their options and opportunities for young people over 16years.  A Member commented that literacy and numeracy skills were important to enable young people to build on the skills needed for their career. 

10. With regard to SMEs recruiting apprentices and then not continuing with the schemes, the Council had asked for information on progression rates, it was possible that some companies over recruited and selected the best apprentices to stay on at their companies, and therefore the company did not continue to recruit apprenticeships.  If was very difficult to track career progression in the Kent employment programme, however some work would be undertaken on this.

11. Members were pleased that apprenticeship schemes were being promoted as an alternative to university, it was considered that the Council should have a better idea of where young people were working after completing their apprenticeship scheme.  Figures would be provided to Members in relation to KCC’s schemes. 

12.  In relation to the priorities set out in para 6.8 of the Update Report the officer explained that the priorities were those identified across the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). It didn’t mean that other priorities would not come forward but those in para 6.8 referred to the LEP priorities.  This would be reported to the LEP.

13. RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee :

i)     thank Mr Gough, Mr Leeson, Mrs Dunn and Mr Little for attending the meeting and answering Members' questions. 

ii)    welcome the offer of the Corporate Director Education and Young People’s Services to provide a breakdown of the apprenticeship schemes across Kent. 

iii)   welcome the offer of the Corporate Director Education and Young People’s Services to investigate data relating to Urban vs Rural take-up of apprenticeship schemes.

iv)   welcome the offer of the Corporate Director Education and Young People’s Services to provide information on the career progression of young people who had undertaken an apprenticeship scheme in Kent.