North-west contractor Seddon Construction is calling for a rethink of construction skills funding so that FE colleges’ funding packages are put to better use – by construction employers.
Seddon is frustrated at the current system, under which FE colleges receive funding directly from the Department for Education to run construction training courses.
It highlighted the problem after receiving 1,400 applications for 75 apprentice places and found that only a third of applicants were school-leavers, while a high proportion had already studied for a college diploma in a construction trade.
But the colleges offer students diplomas rather than NVQs, and little or no site experience, meaning that young people can’t get a CSCS card and still need further training from contractor employers – if they are able to get a job in the first place.
And according to figures from CITB-ConstructionSkills, there are around 17,000 young people undertaking employer-based construction apprenticeships at the moment, but a further 60,000-70,000 studying construction trades in FE colleges.
Director Nicola Hodkinson told CM: “If we take on a boy or girl from college, we then have to take them on to NVQ Level 2. We can put them on a conversion apprenticeship, where we take them on for 8-12 weeks and get £500 in CITB funding. But the college has collected £15 000 to train them.”
In recent months, the government has announced extra funding for college-based training for young people. But Hodkinson added: “An awful lot of young people and their parents are going down the college route, but it’s not the same as work and training. It’s like getting your haircut by someone who has only practised on a plastic dummy – you get bricklayers who’ve only built walls on flat floors in a training bay.
“Two years down the line, if we start to have skills shortages again, we’ll be relying on the people who’ve been to college but have no site experience. We won’t have a problem [at Seddons] as we are bringing through fully fledged tradespeople, but our contractors and supply chain could find it difficult to find people, they end up paying more, costs go up, and then costs go right back up to government.”
Seddon’s training and education executive Roy Kavanagh MBE, who has 45 years’ experience in the industry, added: “College students are being mis-sold – they’re not going to get a job with a diploma. We should start again with the system, so that young people start their training in college then move on to [employers] sites. That would also help the companies who can’t afford to take on an apprentice. With the available money, we need to get more qualified full-time tradespeople, and even if they’re self-employed we want those people to have NVQ 2 or 3.”
Seddon’s call for a rethink was backed by Justin Hopkins, who runs the Astins Institute, an apprentice training scheme for the specialist dry-lining contractor. “I couldn’t agree more. The FE colleges often train to a high standard, but people are trained in a way that doesn’t leave them prepared to work effectively on site,” he said.
“Seddon is right – if we’re going to respond to the future requirements of the industry, we’ve got to concentrate on employer-led training, and not rely on FE colleges. But the funding arrangements seem to be too heavily weighted towards training providers, and the system is set up in terms of training outcomes, not employment outcomes.”
Asked about the problem, CITB-ConstructionSkills chairman James Wates gave qualified support to the idea of a rethink on the distribution of funding. “As the end-user, the industry should have a huge say in the product it’s going to buy [construction trainees]. Government funding goes to the colleges, but it’s fair to say there’s a range of provision – some courses are properly set up and very good, but not all of them engage well with employers.”
