Australia's principal research and evaluation organisation for the vocational education and training sector has recently released a report on accelerated apprenticeships in Queensland.

The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) examined recent pilots of accelerated apprenticeships in the automotive industry using interviews with apprentices, employers and teachers.

The research showed that the traditional model is still well regarded but may require evolutionary change.

The traditional model of apprenticeship, taking an average of 4 years, has been under pressure for some time. Non-completion rates across states and difficulties in attracting new apprentices to industries with major skills shortages have lead to debates about the need for alternative models.

NCVER's study focussed on recent pilots of accelerated apprenticeships for various trades in the automotive industry in Queensland. It examined implications of 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. Interviews with individuals involved questions about traditional and accelerated apprenticeships in Queensland and Victoria.

The perceived strengths of the traditional apprenticeship model included:

Challenges of the model were:

• Getting the right mix of the on- and off-the-job training for each industry.

In general, 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:

Employer benefits were associated with:

• An increased pool of qualified tradespersons
• More on-the-job apprentice training which also helped productivity
• More effective response to the greater levels of skill segmentation
• Increased productivity and morale of employees who are trained, have qualified sooner and can access better pay and career opportunities.

Training providers reported that moving into accelerated models:

A number of concerns about the use of accelerated models also emerged. Apprentices mentioned the pressures associated with putting more time into completing study and assessment while juggling work. Some students did not cope and dropped out rather than move back to the more traditional model. In addition, despite their acceleration, a few believed that employers would not approve 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 report stated that the establishment of certificate II training within certificate III training is a key aspect in the design of accelerated apprenticeships as it moves apprenticeships away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

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.

NCVER also found that 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: