The difference between the two types of learner, which you seem to be ignoring Peter, is the 4 day's a week for 4 years that the apprentice does learning from the plumbers on site doing the actual job of plumbing, in the actual work place under there supervision. They have the opportunity through this time to see how what they are learning in a classroom is applied in the work place. Which is precisely the reason why doesn't work the other way. "Training in classroom conditions is about acquiring theory and know-how, and more often than not, there will be little opportunity to put such learning into practice within the college or training centre - which applies to most industrial training done in colleges". Your words I believe ?
Can you guess what sort of training I have been involved in ? As far as giving the benefit of my knowledge & experience away, well I do that on a daily basis to those who will be able to make the best use of it & the reason I do it is simple, I came through a system where people gave me there knowledge & experience without me having to pay them, I am only returning what I owe.
The big question with a fragmented industry consisting of small firms & little money due to undercutting, who is able to take on an apprentice for this system to continue ??
I think you must have misunderstood my post, because there's no way I would ever suggest that full time college training or anything similar could match up to 4 days on the job and one day in college - being the classic model for apprenticeship training in the past.
But the reality is that such training opportunities are not available to many people, even if they meet the eligibility criteria.
If people are unemployed, or they anticipate redundancy and they are desperate to get a foot on the first rung of the ladder, then fast-track training might be their only option.
When I see the term 'fast track' in an educational context I think of a condensed learning situation that means covering a lot of ground in a relatively short space of time, which is not the same thing as meaning it's a fast track into a job. However, for people who don't have established trade skills a fast-track course might give them the edge over someone who has done no training at all.
These days most employers want experienced people and they don't have much time for training people up, and at the moment it's an employers market anyway, so getting a foot on the ladder for newbies is likely to be tough. What I was saying is that if people bring maturity and other transferable skills to their endeavours then that is likely to increase their chances of success.
Fast-track learning usually means negotiating a steep learning curve, and so may not be suitable for some people, i.e. not everyone learns in the same way, and so FT is likely to suite some people more than others. If people bring established study skills and a good memory to their work, that's bound to help. Aptitude, and a positive but realistic attitude will also stand people in very good stead.
I helped to set up the Employment Training scheme in 1989/90, and did a year as a Training Assessor. The scheme was cribbed from the German model of training and was excellent. Had that scheme been properly supported and funded by the Thatcher Government Britain would be in a much better place today.
Unfortunately, the ideological leanings of a woman brought up in a corner shop led to abandonment of the Man Power Services commission and the associated Government SKILLS training centres, one of the functions of which was to act as a mechanism for coordinating the supply and demand of construction skills.
MPS/SKILLS training centres provided what could be considered fast-track training, but they did it with an emphasis on simulated work situations, rather than being class-room base. When assessing referrals for training as brickie they would look for basic dexterity, and being low on basic literacy skills wouldn't be a bar.
Britain has had 30 years of Government by people who preach responsibility rather than demonstrating any themselves - they've just abdicated all responsibility to the market place and private enterprise, and the current FU is the result.
But to focus on the current topic, I totally agree that 4 days in the workplace and one in college is an ideal model, but the reality is that it's not available to large numbers of people looking for such an opportunity, and it's unlikely to be practicable for people who have a family to support and so need a substantial wage.
With the changes in university funding the scene has been set for people with advanced academic skills to become interested in practical training, and I would think the gas industry will benefit from an influx of such folk.
If I had any say in the matter I would create an agency to do what the old MPSC commission did, and set up Government training centres around the country to provide the best training possible - but my thinking is what people now brand as 'old labour' (even though it was Ted Heath's Government that set up the MPSC)
