Transcript Hugh-Joslin-et-al

Apprentices and Progression
Research Evidence 2011
Hugh Joslin
Sharon Smith
Context for the Research
• Kent and Medway LLN
– Vocational Progression
• University of Greenwich
– Higher Apprenticeships
• The issue of progression for Apprentices
– Skills
– Social Mobility
– Access to the Professions
Explore Key findings
•Progression rates of four cohorts and timing
of progression
•Non prescribed HE and HEFCE funded HE
comparison
•Differences in progression rates by advanced
level apprentice framework
•Regional variations in progression rates
•Disadvantaged profile of advanced level
apprentice learners and progression rates by
disadvantaged groups
70,000
Advanced Level Apprentice Trends
(numbers)
3500
60,000
3000
50,000
2500
40,000
2000
36% growth in
number of Advanced
Level Apprentices
(2005-06 to 2008-09)
37% growth
between 2008-09 and
2009-10
Adv App population
30,000
1500
20,000
1000
10,000
500
0
0
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Adv App Number to HE
69.5% growth in
number of Advanced
Level Apprentices to HE
(2005-06 to 2008-09)
Growth by age group and HE Funding
type
Growth in numbers of Advanced Level Apprentices and progression type
Growth
Number diff Advanced Level
2005-06 to Apprentice Non prescribed HEFCE funded
2008-09
numbers
HE
HE
All HE
17-19 years
2,335
49%
23%
194%
95%
20-24 years
3,095
13%
11%
102%
46%
25 years+
6,080
165%
380%
236%
268%
All
11,510
36%
22%
136%
70%
Cohort Progression rates and timing
1st year tracked
Advanced Level Apprentice Progression (4 cohorts)
2nd year tracked
3rd year tracked
4th year tracked
2008-09
6.80%
2007-08
6.30%
2006-07
5.40%
2005-06
5.30%
0.00%
2.00%
4.50%
3.20%
3%
2.60%
4.00%
6.00%
2.60%
8.00%
10.00%
2.40%
12.00%
14.00%
Progression timing and HE funded type
2005-06 cohort - timing of progression
2006-07 (Immediate)
2007-08 (1 year on)
2008-09 (2 year on)
2009-10 ( 3 year on)
63%
42%
28%
12%
24%
23%
24%
20%
20%
15%
10%
Non Prescribed HE
HEFCE funded HE
All HE
19%
HE Programme Type
Advanced Level Apprentice HE Programme types
2008-09 cohort
2005-06 cohort
22%
24%
First degree
18%
17%
Foundation degree
Higher National Diploma
(HND)
Higher National Certificate
(HNC)
4%
6%
10%
11%
35%
Other undergraduate
NVQ
31%
11%
11%
Geographical differences
Progression breakdown by
Provider Category and Region
HEFCE funded HE progression breakdown by provider type within regions
(2005-06 cohort)
Large companies
FE College/School
Other
Public Sector
39%
42%
46%
Training Providers
36%
50%
52%
53%
59%
61%
61%
11%
2%
3%
19%
5%
6%
14%
32%
23%
17%
8%
9%
2%
3%
41%
15%
2%
2%
4%
8%
3%
20%
15%
18%
17%
9%
East Midlands East of England
11%
6%
London
North East
23%
25%
24%
6%
8%
19%
15%
7%
North West
South East
16%
10%
11%
South West West Midlands Yorkshire and
The Humber
13%
Grand Total
Advanced Level Apprentices
Popular HE Institutions
2005-06 cohort who progressed to HEFCE funded HE
Framework Breakdown
HE providers and frameworks (top 10)
Framework
% of total
who
progressed to
Institution
University A
Children's Care
Learning and
Development
22%
Business
Administration
14%
Hospitality and
Catering
8%
Framework
% of total
who
progressed to
Institution
University B
Framework
University C
% of total who
progressed to
Institution
University D
11%
Health and Social
Care
Business
Administration
Engineering
10%
Construction
11%
Customer Service
7%
7%
Customer Service
6%
8%
Engineering
7%
6%
Engineering
Technology
6%
Dental Nursing
Children's Care
Learning and
Development
7%
Hospitality and Catering
7%
4%
Textiles
6%
Marine Industry
7%
7%
Automotive
Industry
4%
Accountancy
5%
6%
Engineering
4%
3%
Accountancy
3%
Health and Social
Care
4%
IT Services and
Development
Children's Care
Learning and
Development
Engineering
Communications
Technologies
(Telecoms)
Marine Industry
Travel and Tourism
Services Leisure and
Business
3%
Active Leisure and
Learning
3%
Textiles
3%
Construction
Customer Service
Engineering
Technology
3%
Business Administration
3%
Customer Service
Communications
Technologies
(Telecoms)
Engineering
Technology
Business
Administration
Health and Social
Care
Framework
% of total
who
progressed
to
Institution
18%
5%
3%
3%
17%
21%
12%
Health and Social Care
Children's Care Learning
and Development
10%
5%
Deprivation Profile
Geography and progression by deprivation profile
Group Discussion themes
• Are there other research questions we ought
to consider?
• More in depth analysis:
– How useful would sector analyses be?
– How useful would regional analyses be?
– Would there be interest in institutional analyses?
• Continuation of the research (BIS)