Automotivate
The Sector Skills Agreement for the Motor Industry
Sector Skills Agreement – Stage 2 – Assessment of
Current Provision
English Final Draft Report
August 2006
Institute of the Motor Industry
Fanshaws
Brickendon
Hertford
SG13 8PQ
01992 511521
www.motor.org.uk
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 1 of 197
August 2006
Contents
PREFACE ................................................................................................................... 9
1
Executive Summary: Assessing Education and Training Provision for the
Retail Automotive Sector ....................................................................................... 10
2
3
4
1.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10
1.2
Assessment of Current Provision - Methodology...................................................... 10
1.3
Training and Workforce Development ...................................................................... 11
1.4
The Funded Training Structure in England ............................................................... 12
1.5
Mapping Provision..................................................................................................... 12
1.6
Funded Learner Data Review ................................................................................... 13
1.7
Employer and Training Provider Perspectives.......................................................... 14
1.8
Quality of Provision ................................................................................................... 15
Introduction and Background to the Report................................................. 17
2.1
Automotive Skills Sector – an Overview ................................................................... 18
2.2
Occupations within the Sector .................................................................................. 19
2.3
Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 20
Training and Workforce Development in the Automotive Sector............... 22
3.1
Key Messages and Issues ........................................................................................ 22
3.2
The Role of Automotive Skills in Training and Workforce Development .................. 22
3.3
Level of Training Activity ........................................................................................... 24
3.4
Training and FE Colleges.......................................................................................... 25
3.5
business plans and training budgets......................................................................... 26
3.6
Training Volume ........................................................................................................ 28
3.7
Types of Training ...................................................................................................... 29
Overview of the funded training structure.................................................... 30
4.1
Key Messages and Issues ........................................................................................ 30
4.2
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 30
4.3
Departments, Institutions and Stakeholders ............................................................. 31
4.3.1
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) ..................................................... 31
4.3.2
Learning and Skills Council (LSC) ..................................................................... 31
4.3.3
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) ................................. 32
4.3.4
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).......................................................... 32
4.3.5
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) ................................................. 33
4.3.6
Careers Guidance.............................................................................................. 33
4.3.7
Learning and Skills Network (LSN).................................................................... 34
4.3.8
LearnDirect ........................................................................................................ 34
4.3.9
The Association of Colleges (AoC).................................................................... 35
4.3.10 The Association of Learning Providers (ALP).................................................... 35
4.3.11 Trades Unions Congress (TUC) ........................................................................ 35
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 2 of 197
August 2006
4.3.12 Quality Assurance Bodies.................................................................................. 36
4.3.13 Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) ................................................................... 36
4.4
4.4.1
HM Government White Paper: Skills: ‘Getting on in Business, Getting on at
Work’
37
4.4.2
HM Government White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills............................... 38
4.4.3
Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy ................................. 38
4.4.4
Learning and Skills Council (LSC): Agenda for Change: The Prospectus ........ 40
4.5
5
6
Qualifications Framework.......................................................................................... 40
4.5.1
GCSEs and GCEs ............................................................................................. 40
4.5.2
GNVQs, VCEs and Applied GCSEs .................................................................. 41
4.5.3
BTECs and other Vocationally Related Qualifications (VRQs).......................... 42
4.5.4
ARMS................................................................................................................. 43
4.5.5
NVQs.................................................................................................................. 43
4.5.6
Apprenticeships ................................................................................................. 44
4.5.7
Advanced Apprenticeships ................................................................................ 44
4.5.8
Entry to Employment (E2E) ............................................................................... 45
4.5.9
Specialised Diplomas (SDs) .............................................................................. 45
Mapping Provision .......................................................................................... 46
5.1
Key Messages and Issues ........................................................................................ 46
5.2
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 46
5.3
All Qualifications........................................................................................................ 48
5.4
Qualifications Offered by Level ................................................................................. 49
5.5
Qualifications Offered by Type of Course ................................................................. 50
5.6
Further Education...................................................................................................... 51
5.7
Work Based Learning................................................................................................ 52
5.8
Higher Education....................................................................................................... 53
Funded Learner Data Review ......................................................................... 55
6.1
Key Messages and Issues ........................................................................................ 55
6.2
Methodology.............................................................................................................. 56
6.3
Further Education...................................................................................................... 56
6.3.1
Achievement in Further Education..................................................................... 63
6.3.2
Funding for LSC Further Education provision ................................................... 65
6.4
Work Based Learning................................................................................................ 66
6.4.1
Achievement in Work Based Learning............................................................... 70
6.4.2
Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships .............................................. 72
6.5
7
Policies ...................................................................................................................... 37
Higher Education....................................................................................................... 77
Employer and Training Provider Perspectives............................................. 80
7.1
Key Messages and Issues ........................................................................................ 80
7.2
Methodology.............................................................................................................. 81
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 3 of 197
August 2006
7.3
Incidence of Training................................................................................................. 82
7.3.1
7.4
Characteristics of employees who received training ......................................... 82
Funding the Provision of Training ............................................................................. 83
7.4.1
Indirect and direct costs of training .................................................................... 85
7.4.2
Increased costs of training................................................................................. 86
7.4.3
Availability of external funding ........................................................................... 87
7.4.4
Drivers of external automotive funding .............................................................. 88
7.4.5
Improving the model of public funding of provision ........................................... 89
7.5
Drivers of Training..................................................................................................... 89
7.5.1
Internal drivers of training .................................................................................. 89
7.5.2
External drivers of training ................................................................................. 90
7.5.3
Occupational drivers of training ......................................................................... 91
7.5.4
Profitability as a driver of training....................................................................... 93
7.6
Assessing the Demand for Training.......................................................................... 94
7.6.1
Employees most likely to receive training.......................................................... 94
7.6.2
Determining the type of training to be delivered ................................................ 95
7.7
training plans and Budgets........................................................................................ 96
7.7.1
Formal training plans ......................................................................................... 96
7.7.2
Formal training budgets ..................................................................................... 97
7.7.3
Individual training plans ..................................................................................... 98
7.8
Identifying Training Needs ........................................................................................ 98
7.9
Types of Training Courses in Demand ..................................................................... 99
7.9.1
Levels of training in demand............................................................................ 100
7.10 Recruitment and Retention of Learners .................................................................. 102
7.10.1 The quality of recruits....................................................................................... 104
7.10.2 Collaboration between providers ..................................................................... 105
7.10.3 Changes in sector training composition........................................................... 106
7.11 Employer Engagement............................................................................................ 106
7.11.1 Employer involvement in the design of training / courses ............................... 107
7.12 Use of Internal and External Training ..................................................................... 107
7.12.1 Use of internal training schemes ..................................................................... 108
7.12.2 Use of external training schemes .................................................................... 108
7.12.3 Employers using a combination of internal and external provision ................. 109
7.12.4 External provider selection processes ............................................................. 111
8
Quality of Provision ...................................................................................... 114
8.1
Key Messages and Issues ...................................................................................... 114
8.2
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 114
8.3
Ofsted and Adult Learning Inspection (ALI) Reports .............................................. 114
8.3.1
Ofsted Inspection Reports ............................................................................... 115
8.3.2
Adult Learning Inspection (ALI) Reports.......................................................... 116
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 4 of 197
August 2006
8.4
Employers’ Perceptions of Quality .......................................................................... 118
8.4.1
9
Provider evaluation of training ......................................................................... 121
Conclusions................................................................................................... 123
Appendices............................................................................................................ 126
Appendix 1: Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) Qualifications ........................................ 126
Appendix 2: City and Guilds Automotive Qualifications .................................................... 127
Appendix 3: Automotive Training Provider Depth Discussion Guide................................ 128
Appendix 4: Automotive Employer Depth Discussion Guide ............................................ 141
Appendix 5: Automotive Employer Telephone Questionnaire .......................................... 157
Appendix 6: CoVE Focus Group Discussion Guide.......................................................... 179
Appendix 7: Overview of Stage 2 Methodology and Sampling......................................... 182
Glossary................................................................................................................. 188
Courses and Qualifications ............................................................................................... 188
Types of Skills ................................................................................................................... 188
Types of Training Provision............................................................................................... 190
Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... 191
Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 194
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 5 of 197
August 2006
List of Figures
Figure 1. Enrolments in Automotive Sector related FE and Work Based Learning (Qualification Aims).. 12
Figure 2.
Regional distribution of employers in Automotive Skills sector compared with all SSCs.....19
Figure 3.
Data sources for Stage 2 .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.
Training activity in the Automotive Skills sector...................................................................24
Figure 5.
Training activity in the Automotive Skills sector...................................................................24
Figure 6.
Training in the Automotive Skills sector .............................................................................. 25
Figure 7.
Automotive Skills employers who have a business plan, training plan or budget................ 26
Figure 8.
Automotive Skills employers who have a business plan, training plan or budget................ 27
Figure 9.
Training Volume in the Automotive Skills sector .................................................................28
Figure 10.
Types of training arranged by employers in the Automotive Sector in the last 12 months
........................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 11.
List of England’s Regional Development Agencies .........................................................32
Figure 12.
All qualification levels (total) courses – retail automotive sector......................................48
Figure 13.
Level of courses available ............................................................................................... 49
Figure 14.
Type of courses available ............................................................................................... 50
Figure 15.
Enrolments in Further Education (Qualification Aims).....................................................51
Figure 16.
Enrolments in Work Based Learning (Qualification Aims) ...............................................52
Figure 17.
Availability of Higher Education Courses ........................................................................53
Figure 18.
Number of enrolments by subject area and gender ........................................................56
Figure 19.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and gender.............................................57
Figure 20.
Number of enrolments by subject and age (percentages)...............................................57
Figure 21.
Number of enrolments by level of subject and age (numbers) ........................................58
Figure 22.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age (numbers).................................58
Figure 23.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age (percentages)...........................58
Figure 24.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (percentages) .......................................59
Figure 25.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (numbers) .............................................59
Figure 26.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and ethnicity (percentages)....................60
Figure 27.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and ethnicity (numbers) .........................60
Figure 28.
Number of enrolments by subject area and qualification level ........................................61
Figure 29.
Number of enrolments by mode of study and subject area .............................................62
Figure 30.
Number of enrolments by mode of study and level of qualification .................................62
Figure 31.
Achievement level by subject area (numbers).................................................................63
Figure 32.
Achievement level by subject area (percentages)...........................................................64
Figure 33.
Achievement level by qualification (percentages) ...........................................................64
Figure 34.
Achievement level by qualification (numbers) .................................................................64
Figure 35.
Funding by subject area .................................................................................................. 65
Figure 36.
Funding by level of qualification ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 37.
Funding by region ........................................................................................................... 66
Figure 38.
Number of enrolments by subject area and gender ........................................................66
Figure 39.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and gender.............................................67
Figure 40.
Number of enrolments by subject area and age..............................................................67
Figure 41.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age..................................................67
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 6 of 197
August 2006
Figure 42.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (percentages) .......................................68
Figure 43.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (numbers) .............................................68
Figure 44.
Number of enrolments by qualification level and ethnicity (percentages)........................69
Figure 45.
Number of enrolments by qualification level and ethnicity (numbers) .............................69
Figure 46.
Number of enrolments by subject area and level of study...............................................69
Figure 47.
Achievement level by subject area (percentages)...........................................................70
Figure 48.
Achievement level by subject area (numbers).................................................................71
Figure 49.
Achievement level by qualification level (percentages) ...................................................71
Figure 50.
Achievement level by qualification level (numbers).........................................................71
Figure 51.
Number of enrolments by region .....................................................................................72
Figure 52.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by month and
level................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 53.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by region and
level................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 54.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by type .......74
Figure 55.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by ethnic
group............................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 56.
Percentage of learners with Additional Needs leaving before course completion in
2002/03 ........................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 57.
Percentage of learners on Apprenticeships leaving before course completion in 2002/03
........................................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 58.
Percentage of learners on Apprenticeships leaving in each four week block (2002/03)..77
Figure 59.
Automotive Engineering HE students by region ..............................................................77
Figure 60.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region
(percentages) ..................................................................................................................78
Figure 61.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region
(numbers)........................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 62.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region........... 79
Figure 63.
Level of training provided by automotive sector employers in England 2005.................. 82
Figure 64.
Characteristics of employees who received training in the last 13 weeks ....................... 83
Figure 65.
Split of Internal / External training within the automotive sector in England .................. 108
Figure 66.
Average retention rates and pass rates by subject area ...............................................115
Figure 67.
Overall inspection grade for Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments .......................... 115
Figure 68.
Overall inspection grade for Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments in each region... 116
Figure 69.
Overall inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing work based
learning ......................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 70.
Detailed Inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing work based
learning ......................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 71.
Inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing provision in each
region ............................................................................................................................ 118
Figure 72.
Quantitative Survey: Perceived Business Benefits of Training among sector employers in
England ......................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 73.
IMI national qualifications (VRQs) .................................................................................126
Figure 74.
City and Guilds automotive qualifications...................................................................... 127
Figure 75.
Primary Research Activities .......................................................................................... 184
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 7 of 197
August 2006
Figure 76.
Retail Automotive Sector Head Offices .........................................................................186
Figure 77.
Responses to the Quantitative Survey ..........................................................................187
Figure 78.
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 191
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 8 of 197
August 2006
PREFACE
This report is one of a suite of reports prepared as part of the sector skills agreement (SSA)
negotiated between stakeholders in the retail automotive sector.
The SSA process
commenced in 2004 and most reports present a view of the sector in 2006.
The SSA represents a milestone in the development of processes that will ensure the United
Kingdom has sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled people to meet the future needs of
the retail automotive industry and in particular to meet the targets identified by Lord Sandy
Leitch in his 2006 report, a Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills.
This report reflects the work of Automotive Skills Ltd (ASL), which was the original sector
skills council (SSC) for the retail automotive sector. Readers should be aware that in July
2007 ASL merged with the Institute of the Motor Industry IMI, the industry’s professional body
since 1920, and in September 2007, the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) issued
IMI with a licence to be the SSC for the sector. The name ‘Automotive Skills’ is still used by
IMI in relation to its role in developing national occupational standards and qualification
frameworks.
The nature of the retail automotive sector means that research and policy development is
ongoing.
Also, there are ongoing changes to the sector’s footprint.
Details of current
research, the wide range of policy issues being addressed in the sector and the most recent
definition of the sector’s footprint can to be found on the IMI’s website, www.motor.org.uk.
Sarah Sillars
Chief Executive Officer
The Institute of the Motor Industry
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 9 of 197
August 2006
1 Executive Summary: Assessing Education
and Training Provision for the Retail
Automotive Sector
1.1 Introduction
This is the English national report of a UK-wide study carried out for Automotive Skills, titled
‘Assessing Education and Training Provision for the Retail Automotive Sector’. As such, this
report forms part of the Assessment of Current Provision, which is Stage Two of the five stage
Sector Skills Agreement (SSA) process led by Automotive Skills, the Sector Skills Council
(SSC) for the Retail Automotive sector. The overall process is overseen by the Sector Skills
Development Agency (SSDA).
This document has drawn on information from a wide variety of sources, mostly in England
but also UK wide, including primary research, composed of a set of in-depth interviews with
employers and training providers, and a quantitative survey of employers from across the
sector.
1.2 Assessment of Current Provision - Methodology
Stage 2 of the Sector Skills Agreement draws on information obtained from a range of
secondary and primary research activities.
Secondary data was sourced in order to identify:
ƒ
The characteristics of current provision by using a database of courses serving the sector from
the University for Industry (UfI) Learn Direct database.
ƒ
The take-up of learning, learner demographics and achievement; by assessing data sourced
from the public sector funders of Further Education and work based learning in each of the
four home countries.
ƒ
The extent of training delivered by employers in the workplace via assessment of data
obtained from a range of sources including the SSDA Matrix.
ƒ
The quality of provision serving the sector by examining assessment undertaken by the
relevant inspection bodies in each of the four home countries (in England Ofsted and the Adult
Learning Inspectorate).
In addition, a number of large scale quantitative and qualitative investigations were conducted
in order to explore the issues behind the secondary data. The qualitative components of the
research involved focus groups and depth interviews:
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 10 of 197
August 2006
ƒ
Focus group activities centred on a series of six Regional Employer Workshops, which
focused on key issues for workforce development and training in the sector; five of these took
place in England.
ƒ
An additional focus group was conducted with members of the retail automotive CoVE Quality
Improvement Group to examine key issues facing public sector training, in the short, medium
and long term.
ƒ
40 depth interviews were conducted with UK employers and training providers highlighted by
Automotive Skills as being either ‘exemplar’ or highly knowledgeable. This involved small,
medium and large scale employers and both public and private sector training providers.
o
Training provider questioning focused on market assessment activities, funding
issues, quality assurance, networking activities, and future training within the
sector.
o
Employer enquiry focused on the drivers of training, priorities for upgrading skills,
training plans and budgets, the delivery of training, and return on investment
assessments.
To support this qualitative information, a quantitative survey of UK employers operating within
the retail automotive sector was also conducted. A total of 599 interviews were completed,
stratified by geographic location and company size in order to offer a reflective representation
of the views of employers; 510 of the interviews were completed with English employers. The
quantitative questionnaire examined a number of issues, including training plans and budgets,
the drivers of training, training activities, and the impact of training.
Further detail on the methodological approach adopted for Stage 2 can be found within the
main report.
1.3 Training and Workforce Development
Businesses in the English automotive sector perform less well than their counterparts in other
sectors in providing training to their employees, with 54% providing training, compared to 64%
of businesses in the wider English economy. According to UK-wide data, smaller employers
were dramatically less likely to provide training. 15% of employers across all sectors sourced
training provision in the previous 12 months through a FE college. However, it is still true to
say that private sector training providers are a major source of training for the sector.
About a quarter of automotive sector employers in England were found to have a business
plan but less than a sixth had either a training plan or a training budget. According to UK-wide
data, smaller employers were significantly less likely to have any of these. For a majority of
English automotive sector companies, training spend did not exceed £500 per annum.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 11 of 197
August 2006
Training provision in the English automotive sector concentrated mainly on technical skills;
training in other skills was significantly below the average across all sectors. 47.5% of all
organisations in England devoted 90% or more of their training to technical skills. The UKwide data suggested smaller companies were the most likely to provide only technical skills
training.
1.4 The Funded Training Structure in England
Education and training in England is the responsibility of the Department for Education and
Skills (DfES), and is administered and funded primarily via the Learning and Skills Council
(LSC) and Local Authorities. Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships are designed by
SSCs and approved by the SSDA, in partnership with a variety of other stakeholders. Publicly
funded qualifications must be accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA), and entered on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). They are designed and
provided by independent examination boards or awarding bodies, often in collaboration with
other partners such as SSCs. Universities and other Higher Education institutions are free to
develop their own degree programmes.
An outline of the key policies guiding these organisations is provided in the main document,
as is the framework for qualifications in England.
Older learners can take almost all of the courses available, although funding is still mainly
targeted at learners under 25 years old.
1.5 Mapping Provision
FE courses relevant to the retail automotive sector are available at some level in all regions of
England, although potential trainees may have to travel long distances in the more rural parts
of the country to find the specific course they require. There was a particularly strong
concentration of provision in the South East and North West regions.
Analysis of the geographical distribution of learners enrolling in retail automotive sector
related Further Education and Work Based Learning showed that for both, the largest number
of enrolments in any English region took place in the North West. The North East and East
Midlands had a relatively small number of enrolments in both types of learning, and for work
based learning there were a similarly small number of enrolments in the East of England and
London.
Figure 1.
Enrolments in Automotive Sector related FE and Work Based Learning
(Qualification Aims)
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 12 of 197
August 2006
Region
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and the Humber
National Office
Total
Further Education
1,748
1,162
2,349
847
3,378
2,752
1,289
2,198
1,585
n/a
17,308
Work Based Learning
1,639
1,264
1,745
1,634
5,428
3,076
4,314
2,081
2,814
18,334
42,329
Source: LSC WBL/ILR 03/04 Full Year
For Higher Education, it was found that the widest choice of courses from the largest range of
providers was to be found in the West Midlands, followed by Yorkshire and Humberside. The
South East and London, given their population, did not have a particularly wide range of
courses available. Gaps in coverage were most visible in the East of England region,
although the number of courses available here was not particularly low provision was
concentrated in a single institution close to London.
1.6 Funded Learner Data Review
The numbers of public sector Further Education enrolments for retail automotive sector
related courses in England in 2003/04 was 17,308, 94.8% of which were for male learners.
Level 1 courses were the most frequently studied among non-work based learners (by
53.1%), and the most widespread Further Education course was Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
(90.9%). More than half of the public LSC funding for Further Education (52.5%) went toward
Level 1 courses, and 94.4% went toward Vehicle Maintenance/Repair courses.
For Work Based Learning, while Vehicle Maintenance/Repair was still the most frequently
studied subject (by 86.2%), the most common level of study was instead Level 3 (60.6%), and
study at Level 1 was very infrequent (0.2%). There were, in total, 42,329 Work Based
Learning course enrolments in 2003/04 in England, of which 98.8% were for male learners.
Higher Education courses in Automotive Engineering undertaken in England in 2002/03
tended to be at First Degree level (62.0%), although a significant proportion (23.6%) were
Masters degrees. HNC/D courses were also available in many locations, accounting for 7.4%
of courses undertaken. A large proportion of Higher Education students were studying in the
West Midlands (25.2%) and East Anglia (19.1%). In contrast, there were no automotive
engineering enrolments at all in the North East, and very few in the South West or North
West. The distribution of enrolments in Masters degrees and HNC or HND courses was
varied; for example Masters courses made up 38.9% of the total enrolments in the East of
England but only 3.8% in the South East.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 13 of 197
August 2006
1.7 Employer and Training Provider Perspectives
This section covers training of all types, as provided by employers, using a variety of sources
including an in-depth survey of employers and training providers across the UK, which
included a representative proportion from England. Therefore, unlike the previous sections, it
includes both informal training and training sourced from independent providers.
On the subject of funding of training, no consensus emerged. While few wanted full funding,
most believed some kind of funding should be provided. Costs of training were, however,
identified as a significant problem by many employers, although equally the logistical
difficulties of training were a serious issue, particularly for smaller businesses. Many training
providers were aware of this issue. Employers also highlighted the implications of training for
relations between senior and junior staff.
Training providers in the UK as a whole believed the funding system had to become more
flexible, to cover a broader age range and to allow more innovation in course provision. In
England the LSC’s current review of funding arrangements to make them more responsive to
employer needs, and the government commitment to extend learning support to any
employee without a qualification at NVQ Level 2 or equivalent should address these problems
to an extent.
Management training was seen as a high priority among larger and ‘exemplar’ employers;
smaller employers in contrast tended to concentrate mostly on technical training. General and
basic skills training were not generally seen as a priority by any group, although employers
were alarmed at the increasing amount of basic skills training new recruits required. The very
high proportion of technical skills training being carried out by employers in the quantitative
survey carried out for this study suggests that the high level of this type of training may be
boosting the overall training figures for the sector, hiding a significantly lower level of other
types of training than in the wider economy. Training providers concurred with this view,
suggesting that there is a widespread problem with management skills, as well as with the
basic skills of new recruits. As a consequence, they felt that expansion of provision in these
areas, as well as bringing existing technical provision up to date, should be prioritised.
Formal and/or individual training plans were relatively uncommon both for very small and very
large businesses for the former because of the predominance of informal procedures, and for
the latter because of the difficulty of co-ordination across the whole organisation. Formal
training budgets were widespread among businesses with more than 10 employees.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 14 of 197
August 2006
For school age recruitment, providers felt they were hampered by the negative perception
among parents and teachers of potential careers in the automotive sector, as well as a
general perception of the Apprenticeship route as inferior to the more academic routes. This
was believed to cause automotive sector courses to be used as a ‘dumping ground’ for the
less able. Adult recruitment was limited by funding difficulties, largely due to policy priorities
lying elsewhere. The main limitations when promoting courses to employers were felt to be
that employers expected courses to be shorter than was possible, and the fear of ‘poaching’
of staff once training was completed.
Training providers also highlighted obstacles to collaboration caused by the introduction of
competition to the Further Education (FE) sector, meaning that providers were often unwilling
to refer potential recruits to more suitable courses elsewhere. They were also concerned that
consolidation in the sector would lead to a reduction in choice for employers.
Employer involvement in the design of local training courses and provision has been
promoted recently in England, although providers noted that larger employers found it much
easier to contribute. Policy documents suggest that Trade Unions believe that too often
contributions from industry are only from senior management, neglecting the views and needs
of frontline employees, and that the social and cultural roles of FE colleges are at risk of being
marginalised in the rush to realign FE as purely a service to employers. Having said this, the
research reflects the situation across all sectors and the proportion of employees in the retail
automotive sector represented by unions is small, estimated by stakeholders at less than 5%.
Employers used a variety of methods to measure the effectiveness of training, although
overall they found this difficult. Despite this, only 7.5% of employers in the English automotive
sector saw no link between training and the performance of their business, although many
employers stated that training enforced by manufacturers tended to be ineffective. Reasons
for preferring internal training included relative convenience and low cost, dissatisfaction with
courses on offer, and ease of quality control. Take-up of external training was driven by a lack
of skills to train internally, contractual requirements, or perceived good quality of an external
course. While the quality of provision and variety of courses available were major factors in
choosing an external provider, the convenience of the location was also very important. Staff
with strong industry experience was viewed as a big advantage for a course, as was flexibility
of provision. Some employers were dissatisfied with quality of provision; it is notable that the
framework for inspecting FE colleges in England does not yet specifically consider employer
requirements.
1.8 Quality of Provision
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 15 of 197
August 2006
The performance of FE colleges serving the automotive sector across England was found to
be generally satisfactory by Ofsted and ALI (the Adult Learning Inspectorate). Ofsted’s
inspections of FE colleges and similar private providers found 87.6% of Engineering and/or
Motor Vehicle Departments to be satisfactory or better, although only 39.5% were rated as
good or outstanding. ALI found that in work-based learning, 74.1% of departments in the
Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing areas were rated at Grade 3 or higher. ALI also
identified a slight weakness in Quality Assurance; a weakness also seen in other parts of the
UK.
Ofsted data also identified a clear trend toward higher quality provision in the northern regions
of England than in the south, particularly the South East region. Although there were some
regional variations in the ALI data, no similar trend was identified.
Levels of satisfaction among employers with training recently undertaken were in general
high. The largest impacts were felt to be on productivity of employees and staff retention. It
should, however, be remembered that employers dissatisfied with a form of training would be
unlikely to continue to use it if they were unhappy with the results. Many employers not
undertaking external training, for example, justified their decision by citing experiences where
trainees had returned with little additional knowledge. Training required contractually by
manufacturers was particularly criticised by employers for its inflexibility.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 16 of 197
August 2006
2 Introduction and Background to the Report
Automotive Skills Limited is the Sector Skills Council for the retail motor industry. The Council
is led by employers on behalf of the Government and is championing the drive to enhance
competitiveness through skills development. The sector is diverse and covers a broad range
of activities and occupations in all aspects of the sale, maintenance and repair of vehicles. 1
The Assessment of Current Provision is Stage Two in the five stage Sector Skills Agreement
Process led by Automotive Skills on behalf of the sector. Broadly, the Sector Skills Agreement
process is designed to ensure that the skills the sector wants are the skills the sector gets and
this requires work to be undertaken to understand employer needs and map current provision.
Stage Three of the process will involve reviewing skills demand with the current supply of
training and education, both public and private, to identify any gaps in provision.
To achieve this, Automotive Skills commissioned Ci Research to deliver an extensive piece of
research involving both primary and secondary information. This document is the report for
England and the objective is to provide an overview of training and education provision across
the sector, within the country, identifying any key regional variations. The document provides
a snapshot of provision within England, covering the whole Automotive Skills footprint. It is not
intended to provide in-depth analysis of all ‘sub-sector’ activities, but identifies key themes
and aspects for future development and research. It should also be noted that any number of
these activities could also be undertaken by a single employer in the sector. Reports have
also been produced for the other three home nations as well as for the UK as a whole.
The Automotive Skills footprint covers activities in:
ƒ
New vehicle sales,
ƒ
Used vehicle sales,
ƒ
Regular maintenance and repair,
ƒ
Parts suppliers, including factories, wholesalers and retailers,
ƒ
MOT testing and certification,
ƒ
Vehicle body repairs,
ƒ
Restoration services,
ƒ
Valeting services,
ƒ
Fast-fit operations,
ƒ
Other fitting operations,
ƒ
Roadside rescue and recovery services,
ƒ
Vehicle leasing and contract hire,
ƒ
Daily rental fleets.
1
http://www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/RegionalEngland
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 17 of 197
August 2006
The scope of the assessment includes the identification of provision, a quantification of
student numbers, analysis of learner demographics and a review of the quality of provision.
Where available, information has been included regarding the costs of training. This
information has been sourced from a variety of stakeholders and partners including the
Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE),
the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), Ofsted and the Adult Learning
Inspectorate (ALI). The secondary data has been supplemented with a wide variety of
employer engagement activities including focus groups, in-depth interviews and a quantitative
survey of 599 employers across the sector, a representative proportion of which were within
each English region.
2.1 Automotive Skills Sector – an Overview
Data from the National Employer Skills Survey 2003 (NESS) 2 indicates that the retail
automotive sector in England has a turnover of £130bn per annum, accounting for 3% of the
country’s GDP. 3 It is estimated by Automotive Skills that the sector consists of 62,000
companies, employing more than 530,000 people. 4
Findings from NESS suggest that the greatest proportion of establishments in the Automotive
Skills sector in England (51,609 or 71%) work in the area of vehicle maintenance. Motor
trade sales has almost as many employees as maintenance, however despite this, it contains
just under a quarter of establishments (17,018 or 23%), suggesting the presence of larger
establishments in this sub-sector. 5
Analysis of English businesses within the sector suggests that the majority of establishments
are small, with 72% having less than five employees and 95% having less than 25. However,
compared to all sectors in England as a whole, the average size of establishments is similar. 6
Consideration of geographical density is also important, as previous market research has
highlighted that different industrial sectors have different geographical focuses. For example,
comparison of the distribution of Automotive Skills employers against that of all of the Sector
2
Key findings from the National Employer Skills Survey 2003: Automotive Sector Skills Council, p3
3
Key findings from the National Employer Skills Survey, 2003: Automotive Sector Skills Council, p3
4
Automotive Skills (website, Jul 2006) http://www.automotiveskills.org.uk/auto/control/RegionalEngland
5
Some organisations are often assigned to the sales SIC code. However, in addition to sales they also operate
maintenance, repair and other activities.
6
Although large companies are in a minority this does not reduce their importance. The 319 establishments with
more than 100 employees account for less than 1% of all establishments in the sector, however collectively they
employ 12% of all employees in the sector.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 18 of 197
August 2006
Skills Council’s footprints combined highlights a distinct under representation in London.
Throughout the rest of England, the distribution of establishments is reflective of the
combined total of all Sector Skills Councils, with the greatest proportion being situated in the
South East (18%).
Figure 2.
Regional distribution of employers in Automotive Skills sector compared with all
SSCs
All SSCs Automotive Skills
Source: National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p153 Figure G9
In regard to the geographical scope of the market for vehicle maintenance and repair, it was
found that the primary market is local (66%), followed by regional (18%). 14% of respondents
said their main market was national and only 2% reported that their main market was
international. 7
2.2 Occupations within the Sector
Awareness of the occupations within the retail automotive sector and especially the
proportional representation of the workforce in those occupations can serve as a guide as to
where a boost to skill development may be most beneficial. The proportion of occupations in
Skilled Trades (32%) is higher than the average for all sectors in England (9%), the proportion
employed in Professional (5%) Personal Service (< 1%) and Elementary Occupations (8%)
are lower compared to England (14%, 6% and 14% respectively). 8
7
Skills for Business (May 2005) Raising sector skill levels: how responsive is local training supply? p24, figure 10
8
National Employer Skills Survey (2003) p10
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 19 of 197
August 2006
2.3 Data Sources
This study draws on a wide variety of data sources, both primary and secondary, as
summarised in the table below.
Figure 3.
Data sources for Stage 2
Title
Ci Research
Quantitative
Employer Survey
(2006)
(‘the quantitative
survey’)
Description
Primary research carried out for Stage 2 of the
SNA. 599 employers were surveyed, stratified
to reflect the retail automotive sector in terms of
regional/national distribution and company size.
For this reason the survey contains more small
employers (with less than 10 employees) than
many other relevant surveys.
Ci Research In-depth Primary consultation carried out for Stage 2 of
Qualitative Employer the SNA, gathering opinions from a wide range
Survey (2006)
of employers who were highlighted by
Automotive Skills’ as being exemplars of good /
(‘the in-depth
best practice.
survey’)
Ci Research In-depth Primary consultation carried out for Stage 2 of
Qualitative Training the SNA, gathering opinions from a wide range
Provider Survey
of private and public sector training providers
(2006)
who were highlighted by Automotive Skills’ as
(‘the in-depth
being exemplars of good / best practice.
survey’)
Ci Research CoVE
A focus group facilitated by Ci research with
Focus Group (2005) members of the retail automotive sector CoVE
Quality Improvement Group. Attended by over
ten CoVE representatives the discussion
focused on key issues facing training within the
sector.
Automotive Skills
A series of six Regional Employer Workshops
Regional Employer
held
in
2005
in
Thatcham
(01/09),
Workshops –
Loughborough
(06/09),
Bristol
(08/09),
facilitated by Ci
Manchester (13/09), Newcastle (14/09) and
Research (2005)
Edinburgh (23/11). Groups were well attended
and discussions focused on key issues for
workforce development and training in the retail
automotive sector.
Learning and Skills
A large-scale survey carried out to assess skills
Council (LSC),
and training across the English economy. The
National Employers NESS was stratified by sector, enabling
Skills Survey (NESS) information specific to the retail automotive
(2004)
sector to be considered. It was not, however,
stratified by the company size characteristics of
different sectors and therefore tends to contain
views more typical of larger employers within
the retail automotive sector.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 20 of 197
Chapters Coverage
3, 7, 8
UK
7, 8
7, 8
UK but
only
limited
coverage
in Wales
UK but
only
limited
coverage
in Wales
7
England
7
UK
3, 7
England
August 2006
Title
University for
Industry (UfI),
LearnDirect Course
Database (December
2005)
Learning and Skills
Council Individual
Learning Record
(2003/04)
Higher Education
Statistics Agency,
Enrolment Statistics
(2002/03)
Sector Skills
Development
Agency (SSDA),
Sector Skills Matrix
(2005)
Ofsted, FE College
Inspection Reports
(2002-2006)
Adult Learning
Inspectorate,
Inspection Reports
(2001-2006)
Description
The UfI course database is used by the
LearnDirect website and by careers advisers to
source vocational training courses across the
UK. It includes both public and private
provision. The database does not include most
of the provision serving the sector in Scotland.
In addition, the classifications of courses in
Scotland, both in terms of subject areas and
levels, are different and therefore difficult to
compare.
The ILR is the main data source for Further
Education enrolments in England It also
includes Work Based Learning and can be
broken down by region and individual subject
area.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency collects
data covering all aspects of Higher Education
across the UK These are their enrolment
statistics.
This survey of the UK Labour Force, provided
by the SSDA, includes data on employment and
skills needs across the UK, broken down into
sectors corresponding to the individual Sector
Skills Councils (SSCs).
These inspection reports cover Further
Education colleges in England grading them
numerically according to a number of criteria
and also recording pass rates and student
retention levels. The figures used are for
Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments.
The ALI inspections cover Work Based
Learning in England, grading providers
numerically according to a number of criteria
and recording pass rates and student retention
levels. Data can be broken down by region and
inspection criteria. The figures used are for
Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing
departments.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 21 of 197
Chapters Coverage
5, 6
UK but
only partial
App. 3-19 coverage
in
Scotland
6
England
6
UK
7
UK
8
England
8
England
August 2006
3 Training and Workforce Development in the
Automotive Sector
3.1 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
Automotive Skills endorse a number of qualifications and standards for training in the sector,
and co-ordinate the relationship between the sector and training providers.
ƒ
Approximately 10% fewer employers in the Retail Automotive Sector than in the English
economy as a whole provide training to their employees; however, the training spend per
trainee in the sector is significantly higher than average.
ƒ
Fewer employers in the sector use FE colleges for training than the average across all
sectors.
ƒ
According to NESS, the number of days spent on training per capita in England was 4.5,
compared to 5.9 in the economy as a whole.
ƒ
Research carried out for Stage 2 indicates that 28.8% of employers in the sector in England
had a business plan or Strategy. 12.9% had a training plan and 6.9% had a training budget.
Smaller companies were much less likely than larger companies to have any of these.
ƒ
Smaller organisations tended to concentrate training in longer periods.
ƒ
The most common type of training was Technical, followed by Health and Safety. Training in
Management, ICT or Supervisory Skills was less frequently provided.
ƒ
46.4% of sector employers in England devoted 90% or more of their training time to workshop
occupations. For companies in the UK as a whole with less than 10 employees, this figure
increased to 72.9%.
ƒ
Of these small companies, 89.6% provided no sales training, 81.3% no management training,
and 79.2% no administrative training.
3.2 The Role of Automotive Skills in Training and Workforce
Development
Automotive Skills works in partnership with a variety of organisations to ensure qualifications
for all sectors of the retail motor industry are provided. Automotive Skills offer standards and
qualifications in the following industry sectors: Vehicle Fitting; Vehicle Maintenance and
Repair; Vehicle Body and Paint Operations; Roadside Assistance and Recovery; Vehicle
Parts Operations; Vehicle Sales; Vehicle Rental and Leasing Operations. 9
The sector has on offer fourteen NVQs over three levels covering each sector of the industry,
some of which have been broken down further to accommodate specialities. Although open to
9
www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/standards, 12/04/2006
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 22 of 197
August 2006
anyone, they are often obtained within apprenticeship programmes. Adjacent to the
educational route, training in key skills is offered. These are generic skills to aid individual
improvement, self learning and performance in education, training and work 10. In addition,
the sector has developed a range of technical certificates for most motor industry sectors.
These are now a mandatory requirement for all Automotive Skills apprentice programmes. 11
To improve productivity and competitiveness of the retail motor industry, Automotive and
Retail Management Standards have been developed and approved for managers and
potential managers. 12
Universities in the UK now offer educational courses related to the motor industry. One
example is Motorsport Engineering and Motorsport Management Degree programmes.
However, despite the observed growth of higher education courses for sectors within the
automotive industry, The Motorsport Valley Workforce Development Plan 2003 (WDP),
undertaken by the Motorsport Industry Association, questions whether such courses really
meet the needs of the industry by being industry-led and thus responding to employer
pressure or, as it suggests, provision of such courses are determined more by the University
and student’s choices. 13
Research carried out for that Development Plan also suggests that the motor industry needs
help towards taking responsibility for defining and developing the skills of its employees. The
current approach of some employers in the industry to meeting their needs is to ‘poach’ from
other companies, in preference to developing the skills of their own staff. In addition, to
enable educational courses to be industry led, it is suggested that the sector should
collaborate with the learning and skills sector in identifying skills needs, and to assist with the
way in which courses are designed and delivered. This partnership may become more
important as predicted technological and sectoral changes occur resulting in a change in
demand of the skills required.
14
As such, the management and co-ordinating role of
Automotive Skills will be crucial to ensuring that effective relationships are fostered.
10
www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/standards, 12/04/2006
11
www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/standards, 12/04/2006
12
www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/standards, 12/04/2006
13
Motorsport Valley Workforce Development plan, 2003, Motorsport Industry Association
14
Motorsport Valley Workforce Development plan, 2003, Motorsport Industry Association
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 23 of 197
August 2006
3.3 Level of Training Activity
The figure below illustrates the training activity within the Automotive Skills sector, as
highlighted by the National Employers Skills Survey (NESS) 2004, which only covers
employers in England. It shows that 10% less establishments in the Automotive Skills sector
provided training than overall (all SSCs) (54% in the Automotive Skills sector vs. 64% overall).
Just below a third of establishments provided training for more than 90% of their staff.
Figure 4.
Row %
Overall
Automotive
Skills
Training activity in the Automotive Skills sector
Base (wtd)
Base
(unwtd)
Train at all
1,410,248
48,801
27,172
1,073
64%
54%
Train offthe-job at
all
47%
41%
Train onthe-job
only
17%
13%
Train
90%+ of
staff
44%
32%
Train <25%
of staff
8%
9%
Source: National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p88, Figure 5.7
The quantitative survey conducted for Stage 2 of the Skills Needs Assessment supports this,
highlighting that 52.5% of employers in the retail automotive sector in England, compared to
54.0% in the UK as a whole, had provided training within the last 12 months.
Figure 5.
Training activity in the Automotive Skills sector
Over the past 12 months, have you funded or
arranged any training or development for staff?
Automotive Skills
Region
England
North East
North West
Yorkshire and the Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
South West
East of England
South East
London
Size of Company
1–9
10 – 99
100 – 1000+
Yes
54.01%
No
44.92%
Don’t
Know
1.07%
52.50%
77.78%
54.17%
50.00%
45.45%
73.33%
46.15%
42.86%
54.05%
35.71%
46.25%
22.22%
41.67%
50.00%
54.55%
26.67%
53.85%
57.14%
43.24%
64.29%
1.25%
0.00%
4.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.70%
0.00%
41.38%
67.92%
94.44%
56.90%
32.08%
5.56%
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Ci Research 2006 Automotive Employer Quantitative Survey
As can been seen, when findings are assessed by company size, larger businesses were
more likely than medium sized and small businesses to have funded or arranged training for
their staff over the last 12 months (94.4% of large companies compared to 67.9% of medium
sized companies and 41.4% of small companies).
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 24 of 197
August 2006
Regional variations were also evident with employers in the North East (77.8%), West
Midlands (73.3%), comparatively more likely to have funded or arranged training for staff over
the previous year. In contrast, employers in London (35.7%) were least likely to have done so.
While these findings should be treated with caution due to the low base size, Automotive
Skills have suggested that some of these disparities between regions may be related to the
high cost of operating an automotive sector business in some parts of the country, particularly
in London, and to the high turnover of staff in these areas.
3.4 Training and FE Colleges
It was reported in NESS (2004) that across all SSCs in England 15% of employers sourced
training provision in the previous 12 months through an FE college, and 7% of all employers
funded or arranged such training as a result of tailored or customised advice they received
from an FE college. Of those providing any off the job training, a third arranged at least some
of their training through an FE college, and two-fifths did so as a result of tailored or
customised advice from the college. The most common form of training provided by FE
colleges was Job Specific (51%), followed by Health and Safety (29%).
15
The figure below illustrates that fewer employers in the retail automotive sector (43%)
compared to overall (52%) provided job specific training. 13% of employers in the sector
provided training through a FE college (slightly less than the overall average of 15%) and 7%
of employers in the retail automotive sector provided training though a FE college after
consultation with a college. 16
Figure 6.
Row %
Overall
Automotive
Skills
Training in the Automotive Skills sector
Base
(wt.)
1,410,248
48,801
Base
(unwtd)
27,172
1,073
Train but
no jobspecific
training
12%
11%
Provide
jobspecific
training
52%
43%
Train but
only
induction/
health &
safety
2%
2%
Train
through
FE
college
15%
13%
Train
through
FE college
after
consultation
7%
7%
Source: National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p90, Figure 5.9
A survey carried out on behalf of the SSDA and Automotive Skills (2005) conducted with
employers in the vehicle maintenance and repair sector in Greater Manchester, Devon and
Cornwall found that when employers were asked about what external training they used in the
last 2 to 3 years, 47% said they had used FE colleges and 24% said they were very likely to
15
National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p74 and p76
16
National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p90, Figure 5.9
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 25 of 197
August 2006
use FE colleges to provide training in the next 12 months. Out of those who said they did not
use FE colleges to provide training, 23% said this was due to colleges not providing the
required training. 17
3.5 Business Plans and Training Budgets
The figure below illustrates that in 2003 only 44% of employers in the retail automotive sector
in England reported that they had a business plan, compared to 56% of employers in all
SSCs in England (NESS, 2003). Almost a third of all employers reportedly had a budget for
training expenditure, which differed to the retail automotive sector, where as few as a quarter
of employers said they had a training budget. 18
Figure 7.
Automotive Skills employers who have a business plan, training plan or budget
business plan specifying objectives for the
coming year
Training plan that specifies in advance the
level and type of training for employees in
the coming year
Budget for training expenditure
% funding or arranging training for staff over
the last 12 months
% of staff trained
% of staff with job description
% staff with annual performance review
Weighted Base
Unweighted Base
Automotive Skills %
44%
England %
56%
32%
39%
24%
43%
31%
59%
55%
85%
66%
72,417
2,809
53%
88%
75%
1,915,053
72,100
Source: Key findings from the National Employer Skills Survey 2003: Automotive Skills Sector Skills Council, p29,
figure 6.1
This contrasts with the quantitative survey conducted as part of the Stage 2 research, which
found that only 28.8% of employers in the retail automotive sector in England had a business
plan or strategy that outlined their objectives for the coming year. Only 12.9% had a training
plan, and just 6.9% had a specific budget for training expenditure.
17
SSDA and Automotive Skills, 2005, Skills and training requirements in the vehicle maintenance industry in Greater
Manchester, p21 and 13
18
Key findings from the National Employer Skills Survey 2003: Automotive Skills Sector Skills Council, p29
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 26 of 197
August 2006
Figure 8.
Automotive Skills employers who have a business plan, training plan or budget
A business plan or
Strategy that outlines the
objectives for the coming
year
A company training plan
or Strategy
A Training or Human
Resources Handbook for
Staff
Individual training plans
for employees
A training budget
A Dedicated Human
Resources or Training
Manager
A Formal Staff Appraisal
Process
Q1: Which of the following
exist at your establishment…?
Automotive Skills
Region
England
Size of Company
1–9
10 – 99
100 – 1000+
27.55%
12.02%
13.19%
12.69%
7.18%
8.18%
14.69%
28.78%
12.86%
13.88%
13.27%
6.94%
9.18%
15.10%
23.09%
50.63%
77.78%
5.68%
45.57%
77.78%
7.83%
43.04%
55.56%
6.85%
45.57%
55.56%
2.94%
25.32%
88.89%
3.72%
27.85%
88.89%
6.85%
58.23%
77.78%
Source: Ci Research 2006 Automotive Employer Quantitative Survey
These two sources can be compared with a further survey carried out on behalf of Skills for
Business (2005), conducted with employers in the vehicle maintenance and repair sector in
Greater Manchester, Devon and Cornwall, which found that when employers were asked if
they had a business plan with specific objectives for the coming year, 62% said yes. When
asked if they had a training plan, 64% said yes and 44% said they had a budget for training
expenditure 19. This is notably higher than the results from the NESS 20 and contrasts even
more with the results from the Stage 2 quantitative survey.
A possible explanation for these disparities could be a variation in the size of the companies
surveyed. The quantitative survey conducted for Stage 2 was stratified to reflect the overall
business population of the retail automotive sector and was therefore predominantly focused
on small businesses (511 of the 599 completed interviews were with businesses with 1 to 9
employees). Smaller companies in the UK as a whole were dramatically less likely than
medium or large size companies to have a business plan (23.1% as compared to 50.6% for
medium size companies), a training plan, a HR handbook, individual training plans, a training
budget, a dedicated HR or training manager, or a formal staff appraisal process.
19
SSDA and Automotive Skills, 2005, Skills and training requirements in the vehicle maintenance industry in Greater
Manchester, p25
20
Key findings from the National Employer Skills Survey 2003: Automotive Skills Sector Skills Council, p29
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 27 of 197
August 2006
3.6 Training Volume
The number of days spent on training per capita in the retail automotive sector in England
was 4.5, this compared to 5.9 overall. Training days per employee receiving training were
reported to be 9 and the average spend per day on training was 51% higher than the overall
average of 34%. 21
Figure 9.
Row %
Overall
Automotive
Skills
Training Volume in the Automotive Skills sector
Base
(wtd)
Base
(unwtd)
Days
training
per capita
1,410,248
48,801
27,172
1,073
5.9
4.5
Days
training
per
trainee
9.7
9
Training
spend
per
capita
£205
£230
Training
spend
per
trainee
£335
£460
Training
spend
per day
training
£34
£51
Source: National Employers Skills Survey 2004, p89, Figure 5.8
This is contradicted by the data from the 2006 quantitative survey which found that 54.8% of
employers in the retail automotive sector in England were providing only 1 to 5 days of
training per employee receiving training.
Another finding from the quantitative survey was that smaller organisations across the UK
were significantly more likely to provide long periods of training over 20 days (23.4%), than
medium sized organisations (6.5%). This could be due to the practicalities of providing
training in an environment where the loss of one member of staff presents operational
problems; concentrating training in longer periods might allow a temporary replacement to be
found for the employee.
In terms of spending, the majority (61.3%) of respondents in England who provided training
for their employees spent less than £500 in total per annum on that training, with many
(30.0%) not paying for training at all, indicating either state-funded provision or informal
training for which the cost was not quantified.
21
National Employers Skills Survey, 2004, p89
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 28 of 197
August 2006
3.7 Types of Training
Figure 10.
Types of training arranged by employers in the Automotive Sector in the last 12
months
Q10: Which types of training have you arranged for your employees over the past 12 months?
Health & Safety
Training
Basic Skills
Training
Generic Skills
Training
Technical Skills
Management
and Leadership
Training
Supervisory
Skills Training
Financial or
Financial
Compliance
Environmental
Compliance
Training
Job-Specific IT
Training
General IT
Training
Any other
training
Induction
Training
50.5%
Total
Region
51.2%
England
Size of Company
31.9%
1-9
65.2%
10-99
75.0%
100+
69.3%
26.7%
37.6%
79.2%
31.7%
23.8%
16.8%
38.6%
21.8%
27.7%
5.0%
72.6%
27.4%
38.1%
76.2%
32.1%
26.2%
16.7%
36.9%
22.6%
28.6%
6.0%
51.1%
84.8%
87.5%
12.8%
39.1%
37.5%
27.7%
41.3%
75.0%
87.2%
73.9%
62.5%
12.8%
45.7%
62.5%
8.5%
34.8%
50.0%
4.3%
23.9%
50.0%
27.7%
50.0%
37.5%
10.6%
28.3%
50.0%
14.9%
37.0%
50.0%
2.1%
8.7%
0.0%
Source: Ci Research 2006 Automotive Employer Quantitative Survey
The Stage 2 quantitative survey identified that the most common type of training arranged for
employees in the sector in the last 12 months in England was Technical (76.2%). Health and
Safety (72.6%) and Induction (51.2%) training was also provided by more than half of English
employers. However, upskilling in Management, ICT and Supervisory Skills were less strongly
emphasised, and only 27.4% of companies provided Basic Skills training. Least common was
Financial or Financial Compliance Training, provided by only 16.7% of employers.
Overall, the largest proportion of training taking place in the Automotive Sector was in the
broad category of workshop occupations; 46.4% of organisations in England devoted 90% or
more of their training to this. In smaller companies with less than 10 employees, in the UK as
a whole, this was even more pronounced, with 72.9% of all these companies carrying out
90% or more of their training in this subject area. For many organisations, this was the only
form of training provided; 89.6% of small companies did not provide any Sales training, 81.3%
no Management training, and 79.2% no Administrative training.
Even in the case of medium sized companies (between 10 and 100 employees), 61.1%
provided no Sales training, 41.7% no Management training and 50.0% no Administrative
training.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 29 of 197
August 2006
4 Overview of the funded training structure
4.1 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
Vocational training and sector skills in England are primarily the responsibility of the
Department for Education and Skills (DfES), via the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).
ƒ
Further Education in England is funded by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Funding of
schools is channelled via Local Authorities. Higher Education is funded by the Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
ƒ
Nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) provide co-ordination for a variety of policies,
including Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs).
ƒ
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is the publicly funded body responsible for
qualifications in England. They work in partnership with SSCs and independent awarding
bodies to provide various vocational qualifications.
ƒ
The quality of the various categories of training in England is monitored by two agencies,
OFSTED and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI).
ƒ
The Learning and Skills Network (LSN) and Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) provide
support services to the organisations working to provide post-16 training in England.
ƒ
Policies in England focus particularly on increasing the role of employers in directing
vocational education.
ƒ
Increasing the flexibility and improving the image of vocational training is a key objective.
ƒ
Qualifications in England are classified on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF),
which has eight levels. Vocational and academic qualifications are increasingly integrated,
particularly in terms of the qualifications available to school age learners.
ƒ
Apprenticeships in England are developed and implemented by a wide-ranging partnership
between employers and government agencies. Advanced Apprenticeships are available,
based on Level 3 NVQs.
ƒ
A wide range of third party vocational qualifications (VRQs) accredited by QCA, such as BTEC
HNC/Ds, are available. The retail automotive sector uses a significant number of these.
ƒ
Specialised Diplomas are to be introduced, providing a sector-specific vocational training
route.
4.2 Introduction
This section describes the institutional and policy structure within which automotive sector
training takes place in England. This includes coverage of the policies and strategies of
government departments, their partner agencies, and selected industry and trade union
bodies.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 30 of 197
August 2006
4.3 Departments, Institutions and Stakeholders
4.3.1
Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is the government department responsible
for education and lifelong learning in England. They oversee the policy direction of school
education, further education and higher education, as well as workforce training initiatives. 22
Their stated aims are “creating opportunity, releasing potential and achieving excellence for
all” in order to “help build a competitive economy and inclusive society.”
23
DfES’s actions are currently guided by the ‘Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners’,
published in 2004. 24 There are a number of policy documents informing this strategy; the
most relevant are the White Papers ‘14-19 Education and Skills’, 25 ‘Skills: Getting on in
Business, Getting on at Work’, 26 and ‘The Future of Higher Education’. 27
Control and funding of schools in England is mainly administered via Local Authorities. This
said, there are now a number of semi-independent academies, part-funded by private or
charitable sponsors, which do not fall under local authority control but still receive direct state
funding.
4.3.2
Learning and Skills Council (LSC)
The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) was created by the Learning and Skills Act (2000). It is
responsible for planning and funding post-16 vocational training in England, whether delivered
through Further Education colleges, schools, sixth form colleges or private sector providers. It
also offers funds for both public and private work based training provision, including that
provided by companies to their own employees. Similarly to their equivalent bodies in other
parts of the UK, they are very much oriented toward the economy:
“We have a single goal: to improve the skills of England’s young people and adults
to make sure that we have a workforce that is of world class standards.”
22
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER): Overview of the Education System in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland, http://www.nfer.ac.uk/eurydice/pdfs/OverviewOct2005.pdf
23
DfES (2002) Education and Skills: Delivering Results: A Strategy to 2006, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/strategy/
24
DfES (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/5yearstrategy/
25
HM Government (2005) White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/14-19/
26
HM Government (2005) White Paper: Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/
publications/skillsgettingon/
27
HM Government (2003) White Paper: The Future of Higher Education, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/strategy/
hestrategy/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 31 of 197
August 2006
The LSC are currently reviewing their funding policy in England, moving toward a more
employer-focused model. The details of the proposed reforms are set out in their ‘Agenda for
Change’ (2005) strategy. 28
4.3.3
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) fund Higher Education provision
in England. This includes both traditional university education and HE courses taking place in
other institutions such as Further Education colleges. 29
4.3.4
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
There are nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England, controlled indirectly by
the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) whose main aim in setting up the agencies was
to further economic growth and prosperity on a regional basis. Unlike similar organisations in
other parts of the UK, Scotland in particular, they do not have a direct responsibility or funding
role for training initiatives. This said, their role is still important, for example in the creation of
regional strategies that will strongly influence the regional partnerships designed to deliver the
government’s workforce skills aims (e.g. through the management of Business Link
agencies).
Figure 11.
30
The Regional Development Agencies are:
List of England’s Regional Development Agencies
Name
One NorthEast (ONE)
Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA)
Yorkshire Forward (YF)
Advantage West Midlands (AWM)
London Development Agency (LDA)
East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA)
East of England Development Agency (EEDA)
South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWDA)
South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
West Midlands
London
East Midlands
East Anglia
South West
South East excluding London
Source: England’s RDAs, http://www.englandsrdas.com/
28
Learning and Skills Council (2005) Agenda for Change, http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/LSC/2005/quality/reshaping/
agenda-for-change-prospectus.pdf
29
Higher Education Funding Council for England (website) http://www.hefce.ac.uk/aboutus/history/
30
North West Development Agency website, http://www.nwda.co.uk/RelatedContent.aspx?area=263
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 32 of 197
August 2006
A typical Regional Development Agency will have education and skills as a key area of
operation. Each has been tasked with establishing a Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) to
respond to the Government’s Skills White Paper. Among the roles this Partnership could play
within a region are: 31
ƒ
Implementing ‘Train to Gain’;
ƒ
Promoting and broker training to employers;
ƒ
Guiding and implementing the regional elements of the Sector Skills Agreements;
ƒ
Working to improve careers advice, in some cases establishing local careers advice agencies;
ƒ
Developing effective partnerships to deliver government strategy.
4.3.5
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
The QCA is a publicly funded body, created by the Education Act (1997). It accredits
qualifications targeted at both school and Further Education learners in England, as well as
for many vocational learners in the workplace. It also takes charge of the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF), a system that classifies qualifications according to level. 32
Historically, the curriculum offered by QCA has been rigidly divided between academic and
vocational; however, it has recently been reformed to harmonise the two, bringing vocational
qualifications into many schools, as well as FE colleges. Examinations in England are set by
independent examination boards such as Edexcel and OCR.
The National Assessment Authority (NAA) is a subdivision of the QCA, created in 2004 with
responsibility for modernising the practical provision of examinations. 33
4.3.6
Careers Guidance
The framework for careers guidance in England is different to that in other parts of the UK. It
is often specific to young people and those on welfare payments. There is no overarching
official careers service covering the whole population, equivalent to, for example, Careers
Scotland. 34
Connexions (formerly the Careers Service) offer careers advice to 13-19 year olds, as well as
providing a variety of other services such as support in accessing social services and general
advice and information provision. Their activities come under the remit of the DfES.
31
NWDA (website) Skills and Education, http://www.nwda.co.uk/ RelatedContent.aspx?area=263
32
QCA (website) About Us, http://www.qca.org.uk/7.html
33
NAA (website) About Us, http://naa.org.uk/about_us.html
34
The Institute of Career Guidance (website) Questions Asked, http://www.icg-uk.org/page290.html
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 33 of 197
August 2006
They consist of a national umbrella body and 47 local agencies at county or unitary authority
scale. The national body runs the website and markets the organisation to the public, but the
careers and training advice centres are operated by the local agencies. These are funded
from a variety of national, regional and local sources, and their structure varies significantly
from county to county. 35 Connexions are currently undergoing a significant restructuring which
will impact on current arrangements.
JobCentre Plus, part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), as in the rest of the
UK, provides careers and training advice to adults, targeting principally those on welfare
payments as well as various other priority groups. 36
Some Regional Development Agencies fill the gap in provision for employed adults seeking
new employment or training by providing or working in partnership to provide extra careers
advice services, such as Careers Northwest or Aspire (for the Northeast).
4.3.7
Learning and Skills Network (LSN)
The Learning and Skills Network (LSN) provides services to those funding, administering,
providing and supporting the provision of post-16 education in England. It was formerly part of
a UK-wide body, the LSDA (Learning and Skills Development Agency) which has been
reorganised to form the LSN and the Quality Improvement Agency.
The LSN currently oversees a number of major projects designed to deliver government
priorities. The most relevant of these to training in the retail automotive sector are:
ƒ
Supporting the Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs);
ƒ
Supporting literacy and numeracy through a set of Skills for Life projects;
ƒ
Supporting key skills through the Key Skills Support Programme;
ƒ
Supporting vocational skills through the Vocational Skills Support Programme.
4.3.8
37
LearnDirect
LearnDirect promote University for Industry (UfI) initiatives to the public in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland. They promote lifelong learning to businesses and individuals and
maintain online databases of courses in pursuit of that aim. LearnDirect also provide
information on demand to learning providers to improve the link between supply and demand
for education and training.
35
Wikipedia (website) Connexions Agency (UK) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexions_agency
36
JobCentre Plus (website) About Us, http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Aboutus/index.html
37
Learning and Skills Network (LSN) (website), http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 34 of 197
August 2006
4.3.9
The Association of Colleges (AoC)
The Association of Colleges (AoC) represents the interests of FE colleges in England. It
carries out the function of an independent trade association, and as such:
ƒ
Supports FE colleges in England and Wales.
ƒ
Offers colleges advice, particularly in areas such as curriculum and staff development.
ƒ
Lobbies the government to promote colleges’ interests.
ƒ
Markets and promotes FE colleges to the general public. 38
4.3.10 The Association of Learning Providers (ALP) 39
The Association of Learning Providers (ALP) represents the interests of independent learning
providers in all parts of the UK. Membership is open to any provider committed to quality
Work Based Learning, including FE colleges. ALP works primarily to lobby government
agencies and policy makers in the interests of the sector, although it also promotes best
practice and provides some support services to its members. Currently they state that they
hope to influence policy to achieve the following:
ƒ
A national skills strategy that meets the needs of employers and learners.
ƒ
A 14-19 learning curriculum where academic and vocational options are equally valued.
ƒ
Opportunities for learning throughout life to give everyone a chance to succeed.
ƒ
A government-supported learning market open to all providers, offering high quality learning.
4.3.11 Trades Unions Congress (TUC)
The Trades Unions Congress (TUC) has a department, UnionLearn, with responsibility for
education and training policy. They also run the national Union Learning Representatives
programme, designed to promote training in the workplace through 7,000 specially recruited
union representatives. This is expected to expand to 22,000 representatives by 2010, who will
reach 250,000 workers per year. 40 They aim to provide the best training opportunities to
members by working with government departments, the Basic Skills Agency and SSCs. The
TUC also financially supports training for members, through the Union Learning Fund (ULF),
comments extensively on UK government skills and learning policies, and lobbies the
government on behalf of its’ members in this area. 41
38
Association of Colleges (website) About Us, http://www.aoc.co.uk/
39
Association of Learning Providers (website), http://www.learningproviders.org.uk/index.html
40
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Five Year Strategy
41
UnionLearn Website, http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 35 of 197
August 2006
TUC policies and initiatives, however, only affect a small proportion of workplaces and subsectors in the retail automotive sector, since it is estimated by Automotive Skills that less than
5% of employees in the sector overall are members of a union.
4.3.12 Quality Assurance Bodies
The quality of school-level education in England is monitored by the Office for Standards in
Education (Ofsted). Further Education and workplace training is monitored separately, by the
Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI). Ofsted is a government department in itself, and also has
the role of providing independent advice to the UK government on education and skills
policy. 42 There are currently proposals, which now look likely to go ahead, to merge ALI with
Ofsted. 43 The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), a UK-wide body, monitors Higher
Education. 44
4.3.13 Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) 45
The Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) is a newly established body tasked with:
ƒ
Accelerating improvement in the performance of the learning and skills sector.
ƒ
Building the learning and skills sector’s capacity for self-improvement.
ƒ
Helping the learning and skills sector respond to strategic reforms.
ƒ
Leading the learning and skills sector’s quality improvement strategy.
In practical terms, QIA’s primary role is in the designing and commissioning (rather than direct
provision) of services to training providers, including Further Education colleges, which help
or enable them to develop their organisation and teaching in ways which reflect the
government’s learning and skills policies. Among these priorities is to reorientate the learning
and skills sector to reflect demand from employers, in partnership with the SSDA and SSCs.
It is one of the successor bodies to the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA).
42
Ofsted Website, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/
43
FE News: ALP’s Graham Hoyle responds to Ofsted merger proposal, http://www.fenews.co.uk/
newsview.asp?n=619
44
QAA Website, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/
45
QIA Website: Responsibilities, http://www.qia.org.uk/aboutus/responsibilities.html
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 36 of 197
August 2006
4.4 Policies
4.4.1
HM Government White Paper: Skills: ‘Getting on in Business, Getting on at
Work’ 46
The 2005 Skills White Paper sets the broad direction of UK skills policy. It follows on from and
replaces the 2003 Skills White Paper. First and foremost, it proposes two basic reasons for
wanting to improve skill levels in the UK population social justice and economic success.
Skills are seen as helping businesses create wealth and helping people fulfil their potential.
The Regional Development Agencies, LSC, Jobcentre Plus, Small Business Service and
Sector Skills Councils are seen as the key agencies that will work in partnership to drive
forward the skills strategy, with input from the CBI, TUC and the Small Business Council.
It provides two key ‘levers for change’:
ƒ
Switching the way adult training is delivered, so that it starts with the needs of employers;
ƒ
Ensuring employers’ skills priorities are articulated at every stage.
Central to this is the establishment of Sector Skills Councils to produce Sector Skills
Agreements and assist in tailoring qualifications to employers’ needs. A National Employer
Training Programme is also proposed, providing brokerage between employers and training
providers, creating a mechanism for articulating demand throughout the education and
training provision system. This has now been launched under the name ‘Train to Gain’. The
government intends to fund any employee’s basic skills training or first full Level 2
qualification. Limited funding will also be made available for Level 3 qualifications.
A significant new investment, of £1.5 billion in the next five years, is promised to reform and
improve the Further Education sector, including a plan to create new ‘employer led’ Skills
Academies. These new academies will provide a co-ordination function that will link the work
of Centres of Vocational Excellence, colleges and universities with sector-specific employerled programmes of study.
The key strands to the skills strategy are as follows:
ƒ
To put employers needs and priorities centre stage, via ‘Train to Gain’;
ƒ
To give employers a stronger voice in shaping the supply of training, via Sector Skills
Agreements, Skills Academies and Regional Skills Partnerships;
46
HM Government (2005) White Paper: Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/
publications/skillsgettingon/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 37 of 197
August 2006
ƒ
To support individuals with better information and guidance in terms of jobs, skills and training.
ƒ
To help all adults gain basic and employability skills;
ƒ
To encourage trade unions to further address skill needs;
ƒ
To introduce market competition (‘contestability’) into the university, college and training
providers system.
4.4.2
HM Government White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills 47
The main aims of the 2005 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper are to improve the level of
vocational and basic skills of school leavers, to offer a greater choice of courses to learners
which are as far as possible targeted at employers’ needs, and through doing this to
encourage as many young people as possible to remain in school education until the age of
18.
From a practical point of view this will mean:
ƒ
Increasing the literacy / numeracy element in league tables and GCSE grades;
ƒ
Making the curriculum more flexible so school age learners can more easily study a
combination of academic and vocational subjects;
ƒ
Creating a parity of esteem between academic and vocational course options;
ƒ
Creating sectoral ‘Diplomas’ (now known as ‘Specialised Diplomas’), to be designed by
employers via SSCs;
ƒ
Increasing the opportunities for experience of work at 14-19;
ƒ
Creating a pilot programme for those entering employment post-16 which includes in-work
training and a Level 1 Diploma;
ƒ
Encouraging partnership working between schools, FE colleges and workplaces to enable
schools to provide a full range of both academic and vocational qualifications;
ƒ
Reconfiguring the system with the aim of meeting both employer and learner needs and
demands.
4.4.3
Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy 48
The DfES five year strategy details the practical measures to be taken between now and
2009 in order to fulfil the policy aims set out in White Papers. For the purposes of this
document, the focus is on the 14-19 Education and Adult Skills sections of the strategy.
For 14-19 year olds, the aim is to radically improve the quality and reputation of vocational
options and, in particular, to dramatically increase employer involvement. All 14-19 year olds
47
HM Government (2005): White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills, www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/14-
19educationandskills/
48
DfES (2004): Five Year Strategy, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/5yearstrategy/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 38 of 197
August 2006
should undertake some form of vocational training. It is hoped that this approach will lead to
increased numbers staying in school education until age 18. Other priorities include:
ƒ
Providing the flexibility to combine school, college and work-based training;
ƒ
A re-launch (new marketing drive) and expansion of the Apprenticeships programme;
ƒ
To ensure that teachers, lecturers and trainers should have “recent experience in industry, and
continuing close contact with the workplace”;
ƒ
An increased focus on specialisms in individual schools / colleges / training providers.
ƒ
Ensuring convenient access to education;
ƒ
To legislate to hold competitions to improve choice and bring in new providers;
ƒ
To remove and/or avoid any financial incentives not to go into training at 16.
Action will also be taken to improve adult skills. This area is now seen as a priority for DfES,
since to create a workforce with the skills employers need requires upskilling the existing
workforce as well as new entrants. This is highlighted in the White Papers as a currently weak
area, and one where competing against the rest of Europe is critical. Initiatives will be
introduced to:
ƒ
Drive up demand among employers and often sceptical employees;
ƒ
Ensure that the supply of training and skills is directly shaped by the needs of employers;
ƒ
Create a more flexible qualifications system;
ƒ
Offer free tuition in basic skills and up to Level 2 standard in a first vocational skill, via Adult
Learning Grants;
ƒ
Improve the Apprenticeship programme;
ƒ
Break courses down into smaller units that can be better fitted around work commitments;
ƒ
Ensure that training provision is made more responsive to employer demand, via Sector Skills
Councils;
ƒ
Make apprenticeships available for the over 25s;
ƒ
Provide financial and logistical support for employers wanting to train their staff;
ƒ
Support the Union Learning Representatives programme;
ƒ
Promote CoVEs and other extensions of provider choice;
ƒ
Recruit teachers in FE on secondment from industry;
ƒ
Explore the Skills (FE) Academy concept;
ƒ
Offer an Adult Learning Grant of £30 per week for first Level 2 qualifications;
ƒ
Establish a new funding balance between employer, trainee and the state.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 39 of 197
August 2006
4.4.4
Learning and Skills Council (LSC): Agenda for Change: The Prospectus 49
Agenda for Change is a plan to reform provision of Further Education in the UK, following on
from recent White Papers on the subject. It is still being consulted upon, and whether all
elements of this plan will be implemented is not yet certain.
Practical proposals include:
ƒ
The creation of a ‘Quality Mark’ so that employers know what standard of training they are
purchasing;
ƒ
Development of a National Employer Training Programme, now known as ‘Train to Gain’, as a
‘demand-led mechanism for changing the way in which training for adults is delivered’;
ƒ
Providing funding in line with employer choice, as articulated by ‘Train to Gain’;
ƒ
Linking funding to the success of colleges in a new Quality Review Process;
ƒ
Moving away from micro-management of funding;
ƒ
Seeking to harmonise funding across the various different public, private and voluntary
providers; introducing competition for government purchasing of training;
ƒ
Adopting a business ethos in the way FE colleges are run;
ƒ
Simplifying data reporting requirements for colleges;
ƒ
Creating a central record of learning for each individual;
ƒ
Developing a marketing and communications strategy for the FE sector as a whole.
4.5 Qualifications Framework
Qualifications in England are very similar to those in Wales and Northern Ireland, divided into
primary, secondary, further and higher education. There are two broadly parallel qualification
routes academic or vocational. All school and FE level qualifications in England are
accredited by the QCA (the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) 50 and are categorised
according to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The NQF is a nine level
framework (Entry Level and Levels 1-8), where qualifications on each level are intended to be
equivalent in difficulty, whether vocational or academic in nature. Levels 1 and 2 are
equivalent to GCSEs, Level 3 to A Levels, Levels 4-6 to a standard university degree, and
Levels 7-8 to further university degrees such as Masters and Doctorates.
4.5.1
49
GCSEs and GCEs
LSC (2005): Agenda for Change: The Prospectus, http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/LSC/2005/quality/reshaping/
agenda-for-change-prospectus.pdf
50
QCA (website) About Us: http://www.qca.org.uk/7.html
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 40 of 197
August 2006
There are two main categories of academic qualification taught to school age learners in
England, General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs) and General Certificates of
Education (GCEs).
GCSEs are part of the compulsory education system, covering a wide range of subjects, and
are typically taught at age 14-16. After this, young people can choose to take a number of
different routes, which include switching to vocational qualifications and/or taking up
employment. The traditional route has been to move on to GCEs, more usually called A
Levels. AS Levels are usually taken in the first year of the GCE, followed by A2 Levels in the
final year; an AS Level and A2 Level together make a full A Level qualification, although the
AS Level may also be taken alone.
51
This route can potentially lead to Higher Education (HE)
at 18. A Levels can be extended further for some subjects through optional Advanced
Extension Awards (AEAs) aimed at young people with high achievement levels. 52 Both
GCSEs and A Levels have recently been extended to include vocational as well as academic
subjects; this is covered in detail below.
4.5.2
GNVQs, VCEs and Applied GCSEs
GNVQs (General National Vocational Qualifications) have for many years been the main
school/college age vocational qualifications. They were designed to develop knowledge in
broad career areas, as well as providing ‘employability’ skills, leading on to employment,
Further Education or Higher Education. GNVQs are now in the process of being replaced with
a new framework for vocational learning; 53 however, these new qualifications are still often
referred to informally as GNVQs. 54
Foundation and Intermediate GNVQs will be completely replaced by October 2007 with
Applied GCSEs (also sometimes referred to as Vocational GCSEs, VGCSEs, GCSEs in
Applied Subjects, or GCSEs in Vocational Subjects). These are narrower in scope than the
GNVQs they have replaced, equivalent in workload to two rather than four GCSEs. They are
also taught directly alongside GCSEs in schools at age 14-16, unlike GNVQs, which were
usually taken after GCSEs in FE colleges. 55
51
QCA (website) A Levels, http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/qualifications/index_a-levels.htm
52
QCA (website) AEAs, http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/qualifications/index_aeas.htm
53
QCA (website) A Levels, http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/qualifications/index_a-levels.htm
54
BBC (website) Schools in Wales FAQ http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/schoolgate/yourquestions/content/
aboutschool_subjects.shtml
55
UK National Reference Point for Vocational Qualifications: Vocational Qualifications in the UK,
http://www.uknrp.org.uk/Pages/UK_Voc_Quals/National_Qualifications.asp
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 41 of 197
August 2006
Advanced GNVQs were replaced by VCEs, a new type of A Level, in 2000 (sometimes called
Vocational A Levels, or AVCEs). They were intended to be equivalent in status and workload
to standard GCE A Levels and could be studied at either AS Level (typically taking one year)
or A Level (typically taking two years). There was also a VCE Double Award available,
intended to be taken in two years, but to be equivalent to two standard A Levels. These
qualifications were offered by either schools or FE colleges, as full time courses, usually to
the 16-18 age group. 56
VCEs are now in the process of being replaced by GCE A Levels in Applied Subjects, in line
with the goal of integrating vocational and academic qualifications into the same framework,
as has been done with GCSEs in Vocational Subjects. These are now part of the same
framework as standard GCE A Levels, typically featuring a two year course composed of an
AS Level and an A2 Level resulting in the award of an A Level qualification. AS Levels may
also be taken alone. Double Awards, which are equivalent to two standard A Levels, remain
available and are composed of two AS Levels and two A2 Levels. 57
4.5.3
BTECs and other Vocationally Related Qualifications (VRQs)
BTEC qualifications are vocational courses usually taught in FE colleges and are offered in all
parts of the UK except Scotland by the English examinations board Edexcel. They are the
best known of a wide variety of ‘branded’ Vocationally Related Qualifications (VRQs), offered
by independent awarding bodies. Similar alternatives are offered by other independent
examination boards such as City and Guilds, IMI or OCR. 58
Edexcel offer five levels of BTEC qualification. The Introductory Diploma and First Diploma
are at Levels 1 and 2 respectively, at a similar level to a GCSE course but involving a similar
workload to four GCSEs or two Applied GCSEs. The National Certificate (NC) and National
Diploma (ND) are both at Level 3; the NC is the equivalent of two A Levels and the ND is the
equivalent of three.
Higher National Certificates (HNCs) and Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) are relatively
broad ranging BTEC vocational qualifications, at Level 4 and Level 5 respectively. Both are
vocationally based modular courses, taken either in an FE college or HE institution. Both are
two year courses, but HNDs are usually full time and cover a broader subject area than part
time HNCs.
56
59
UK National Reference Point for Vocational Qualifications: Vocational Qualifications in the UK,
http://www.uknrp.org.uk/Pages/UK_Voc_Quals/National_Qualifications.asp
57
QCA website, VCE A Levels, http://www.qca.org.uk/10379.html
58
NAA website, http://naa.org.uk/examsoffice/help/index_qualifications_overview.html
59
ELWa website, http://www.elwa.ac.uk/elwaweb/elwa.aspx?pageid=520
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 42 of 197
August 2006
4.5.4
ARMS
The Automotive Retail Management Standard (ARMS) is the retail automotive industryspecific, nationally recognised management benchmark which provides an effective means of
improving existing managerial skills.
ARMS was designed and developed by employers and other key stakeholders representing
the industry, to ensure relevance across the whole retail automotive sector and, more
importantly, to deliver proven business benefits.
Two qualifications have been developed to recognise those who can demonstrate that they
meet the ARMS benchmark. They are awarded jointly by the IMI and the CMI (Chartered
Management Institute). In February 2006, these qualifications gained the status of being
recognised within the national qualifications framework at Level 5. They are:
ƒ
The Certificate in Automotive Retail Management which is designed for line managers and
potential line managers who meet the requirements of the first ten units of ARMS. As the
candidate progresses through the units they will apply their learning to in-house projects
driven by the needs of the business.
ƒ
The Diploma in Automotive Retail Management which is designed for those managers who
can not only meet the requirements of the Certificate, but can also demonstrate that their
learning is integral to their role within the business operation.
Universities can also include the ARMS in their degree programmes.
4.5.5
NVQs
Designed for those already in employment, NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) are
based on the skills, knowledge and competence required as defined by specific industry
sectors. They are based upon a framework of NVQ units, designed to assess ability to
perform tasks in the workplace. NVQ units are based upon the National Occupational
Standards (NOS), which define the skills and knowledge required to work in particular
occupations. They are produced in consultation with SSCs and other stakeholders; they are
accredited in England by the QCA. Automotive Skills is involved in the development of a
number of NVQ qualifications.
Level 1 is the lowest level of NVQ and Level 5 is the highest. Level 3 is approximately
equivalent to an A Level and Level 5 is approximately equivalent to a Masters degree. They
are designed to be carried out mainly by those in employment, especially at the start of their
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 43 of 197
August 2006
careers. NVQs can also be studied as part of an Apprenticeship, as explained in the next
section.
4.5.6
Apprenticeships
Apprenticeships are the main delivery system for publicly funded work-based training in
England. Similar programmes are available in other parts of the UK; National Traineeships in
Northern Ireland and Foundation Modern Apprenticeships in Wales are very similar, though
there is no directly equivalent scheme in Scotland. The contents of apprenticeships are set
with input from industry. They combine on-the-job and off-the-job training so that an
apprentice can train and earn at the same time. An apprenticeship qualification may lead to
an Advanced Apprenticeship at Level 3. An Apprenticeship consists of:
ƒ
A Level 1 key skills qualification.
ƒ
A Level 2 NVQ.
ƒ
(Usually) a job-specific technical certificate.
ƒ
Employee rights and responsibilities.
60
Apprenticeships are now available to the over 25s, although funding is limited. In summary: 61
ƒ
The LSC provide funding.
ƒ
The curriculum is set by a partnership headed by SSCs, although the qualifications, which
make up an Apprenticeship are usually designed by examination boards and accredited by the
QCA. These qualifications are often developed in partnership with SSCs and other employers’
representatives.
ƒ
Training is provided by FE colleges and private providers, as well as by employers.
ƒ
Connexions, Jobcentre Plus, schools and the TUC promote apprenticeship programmes to
potential trainees.
ƒ
The quality of Apprenticeships is monitored by SSCs, as well as by the normal education and
training quality monitoring agencies such as ALI.
4.5.7
Advanced Apprenticeships
Advanced Apprenticeships use an almost identical framework to Apprenticeships, but the
qualifications (with the exception of Key Skills) are at NVQ Level 3 or equivalent. Similar
60
Apprenticeships (Website): How it Works, http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/employers/aboutapprenticeships/
howitworks/default.htm
61
Apprenticeships (Website): Funding and Apprenticeship Policy, http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/partners/
fundingandapprenticeshippolicy.htm
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 44 of 197
August 2006
programmes are available in all other parts of the UK under the title of Modern
Apprenticeships. 62
4.5.8
Entry to Employment (E2E)
Entry to Employment is a programme similar to Apprenticeships. It offers young people with
few existing qualifications at age 16 the chance to study for a Level 1 qualification in a workbased setting. These young people are at the edge of society and often run the risk of turning
to crime. They will have a history of poor attendance at school and may have been affected
by drugs and other crime related issues. The aim of E2E is to help these young people get
onto a mainstream programme, such as an apprenticeship programme, as quickly as
possible. Courses will be organised to help them with their basic and social skills. E2E is not
for young people who have simply failed their GCSEs; it is targeted at young people with
particular and often severe problems. The programme is available only in England. 63
4.5.9
Specialised Diplomas (SDs)
Specialised Diplomas were first proposed in 2005 in the government White Paper, 14-19
Education and Skills. 64 They are intended to be wide-ranging qualifications relevant to a
particular vocational sector and are being developed by QCA in conjunction with SSCs,
employers, awarding bodies, schools and colleges. This partnership is known as a Diploma
Development Partnership (DDP). The first of these qualifications will be available in 2008,
with all sectors offering such a qualification by 2013. 65 They will offer learners a vocational
learning experience that will be rigorously assessed.
62
Apprenticeships (Website): How it Works, http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/employers/aboutapprenticeships/
howitworks/default.htm
63
Apprenticeships (Website): Funding and Apprenticeship Policy, http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/partners/
fundingandapprenticeshippolicy.htm
64
HM Government (2005): White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills, www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/14-
19educationandskills/
65
QCA (website): Specialised Diplomas, http://www.qca.org.uk/17046.html
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 45 of 197
August 2006
5 Mapping Provision
5.1 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
There is little or no comparable data on training provision between England and the rest of the
UK, due to differences in classifications and measurement methods.
ƒ
Enrolments in Further Education (FE) and Work Based Learning (WBL) are concentrated in
the North West, although the South East and South West had the largest number of courses
available.
ƒ
In most regions, the largest numbers of courses were found to be available at Level 3,
followed by Level 2.
ƒ
The greatest variety of qualifications were available in the South East and South West.
ƒ
Areas with a significant lack of overall provision include the East coast. In the South West,
WBL provision is much stronger than FE provision.
ƒ
Geographical analysis of Higher Education in the sector shows a strong cluster of provision in
the West Midlands and also better than average provision in Yorkshire and the Humber.
5.2 Introduction
In order to offer a snapshot of provision, the University for Industry provided a list of all
courses relating to the retail automotive sector registered on the Learn Direct website (as of
December 2005), which can be used as a proxy measure for a common database to provide
consistent information across the country. While this cannot be considered a complete list, it
provides an indication of how provision of all types, whether public or private, is distributed
across England.
Data has been sourced on the basis of the Automotive Skills Learn Direct classification
system (LDCS). However, as a database could not be provided with these codes included,
courses have been manually assigned to subject areas. Similarly, qualification levels were
allocated via primary research activities; including provider website analysis and direct
telephone enquires. The LDCS codes used are as follows:
ƒ
Motor trade operations (sales), BD.3
- motor trade sales, BD.31
- garage operations (sales), BD.32
- forecourt work (garage operations), BD.321
- vehicle parts / accessories (sales), BD.33
ƒ
Vehicle finishing, XR.24
ƒ
Vehicle maintenance/repair /servicing, XS.
ƒ
Vehicle maintenance/repair, XS.1
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 46 of 197
August 2006
- vehicle cleaning, XS.15
- vehicle inspection, XS.16
ƒ
Vehicle workshop practice, XS.2
ƒ
Vehicle body maintenance/repair, XS.3
- panel beating, XS.31
- vehicle welding, XS.32
- vehicle restoration, XS.33
- classic vehicle restoration, XS.331
- vintage vehicle restoration, XS.332
- vehicle painting / spraying (bodyshop), XS.34
ƒ
Vehicle engine maintenance/repair, XS.4
- engine diagnostics, XS.41
- LGV engines, XS.42
- car & van engines, XS.43
- diesel engines (vehicle), XS.44
ƒ
Vehicle fuel systems, XS.45
- fuel injection systems, XS.451
- turbo-charging, XS.452
- catalytic converters, XS.453
- vehicle exhaust systems, XS.46
- vehicle ignition systems, XS.47
- vehicle lubrication, XS.48
ƒ
Vehicle wheel & tyre fitting, XS.5
ƒ
Vehicle electrical/electronic systems, XS.6
- vehicle battery / charging systems, XS.61
ƒ
Vehicle steering / braking / transmission, XS.7
- braking systems, XS.71
- gears / gear boxes (vehicle), XS.72
ƒ
Bicycle maintenance/repair, XS.8
ƒ
Motorcycle maintenance/repair, XS.9
The subsequent maps and analysis give a geographical overview of the number of retail
automotive courses available in each region of England, encompassing analysis of both
course level and subject. More in-depth analysis of the patterns of provision across the UK,
both in terms of level and course subject, is available in the main UK report.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 47 of 197
August 2006
5.3 All Qualifications
Figure 12.
All qualification levels (total) courses – retail automotive sector
Source: UfI Database, sourced December 2005
There were a total of 3,404 courses available to the retail automotive sector in England in
December 2005, according to the UfI database. The map above illustrates that within
England, the North East and the East Midlands regions had the fewest automotive sector
courses available. The most extensive provision was found in the South East (593 courses)
and South West (533), with the North West (453) and Yorkshire and the Humber (447) also
well served. The West Midlands (317), London (331) and the East of England (323) had
slightly fewer courses than average, while the regions with the least availability of such
courses were the East Midlands (214) and North East (193).
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 48 of 197
August 2006
5.4 Qualifications Offered by Level
Figure 13.
Level of courses available
Source: UfI Database, sourced December 2005
The map above gives an overall view of the number of qualifications available at various
levels (ranging from Entry Level to Levels 5 to 8) in each of the regions of England. Gaps in
the availability of certain levels of qualification can be seen in some areas, although it should
be remembered that in many regions, for example the South West, a large proportion of the
qualifications offered did not have a stated level. This is largely due to deficiencies in the UfI
database.
The proportions of qualifications were broadly similar across most of the English regions, with
Level 3 being the most popular (817 courses nationwide), followed by Level 2 (552 courses)
and then Levels 4 and 1 (282 and 291 courses respectively). The trend was different in the
West Midlands and East of England, where Level 2 courses were the most common. Courses
at Level 5 or higher were not available in every region, with only 67 available overall. Entry
Level courses were infrequently offered, with only 22 available nationwide.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 49 of 197
August 2006
5.5 Qualifications Offered by Type of Course
Figure 14.
Type of courses available
Source: UfI Database, sourced December 2005
The map above gives an overview of the different course subjects available in the retail
automotive sector throughout England by illustrating the percentage of total courses within
each of the regions made up by each subject.
Analysis shows that Vehicle Maintenance/Repair/Servicing and Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
dominated provision in most areas. Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair was another popular
course, tending to be best represented in the northern regions of England. Vehicle Engine
Maintenance/Repair made up a substantial portion of all courses in the South West, South
East and East of England in particular.
For the less popular courses, some regional variation is also evident. Vehicle
Steering/Braking/Transmission was more popular in the South East and South West than in
most areas. Vehicle Electrical/Electronic Systems courses showed a similar distribution,
although they were also well catered for in the East of England. In general, a wider variety of
courses were available in the southern regions. It is apparent that the North East of England
has the least variety of courses available. Many of the less popular courses were either not
provided, or provided to a much lesser extent, in this area.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 50 of 197
August 2006
5.6 Further Education
Figure 15.
Enrolments in Further Education (Qualification Aims)
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
In total there were 17,308 enrolments (qualification aims) in Further Education courses
serving the retail automotive sector in 2003/04.
The North West accounted for the largest number of enrolments (3,378) in retail automotive
sector related Further Education courses of any English region. The South East, London and
the West Midlands also had more enrolments than average, 2,752, 2,349 and 2,198
enrolments respectively. Other areas had fewer enrolments that average, namely the East of
England (1,748), Yorkshire and the Humber (1,585) and the South West (1,289). The areas
with the fewest Further Education enrolments were the East Midlands (1,162) and the North
East (847).
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 51 of 197
August 2006
5.7 Work Based Learning
Figure 16.
Enrolments in Work Based Learning (Qualification Aims)
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
In total there were 42,329 enrolments (qualification aims) on Work Based Learning courses
serving the retail automotive sector in 2003/04, of these 18,334 enrolments were registered
with providers who contracted with the National Office and who provided services to national
employer training schemes.
As with Further Education, area specific Work Based Learning enrolments were also
concentrated in the North West (5,428), although it was notable that the South West, with
4,314 enrolments, was also an area with strong provision, unlike Further Education. The
South East and Yorkshire and the Humber also had an above average number of enrolments,
with 3,076 and 2,814 respectively. Provision was below average in the West Midlands, with
2,081 enrolments. The fewest enrolments in Work Based Learning were in the East Midlands
(1,264), the North East (1,634), the East of England (1,639) and London (1,745). This low
level of enrolments is particularly surprising for London given its large population.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 52 of 197
August 2006
5.8 Higher Education
Figure 17.
Availability of Higher Education Courses
Source: UCAS Course Database for 2007 entry (http://www.ucas.ac.uk) searched for Automotive Engineering
courses. Locations of campuses were provided by individual university and college websites
As can be seen from the map above Higher Education Automotive Engineering courses are
provided in all regions of the UK. It is likely that the courses in the North East have only
recently become available, given that statistics from 2002/03 show zero participation in the
region. The West Midlands had an unusually large range of provision, reflecting its historical
association with the motor industry, with a total of 23 different courses available from seven
different providers. Yorkshire and Humberside also had a large number of courses (13)
available, and the North West also had an above average number of courses (10). The
principal gaps in coverage are in the more rural areas. The East Coast has very little
provision, with all courses provided in the East of England (8) being in close proximity to
London; which along with the South East had 9 courses available. The regions with the lowest
numbers of courses available were the South West (7), East Midlands (6) and North East (3)
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 53 of 197
August 2006
.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 54 of 197
August 2006
Funded Learner Data Review
5.9 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
Further Education
ƒ
The number of females taking part in Further Education in the sector was low (5.2%).
ƒ
The vast majority of enrolments were for Vehicle Maintenance/Repair courses (90.9%),
which also received the vast majority of funding (94.4%).
ƒ
Level 1 courses made up the majority of enrolments, followed by Level 2. Funding also
followed this pattern.
ƒ
The majority of enrolments at all levels were by under 19s, although older learners were
significantly more likely to take higher level courses.
ƒ
Work Based Learning
ƒ
The vast majority of enrolments were in Vehicle Maintenance/Repair (86.1%).
ƒ
The majority of enrolments were at Level 3, although Level 2 courses were also
frequently studied, especially among the under 19s.
ƒ
The number of females taking part in Work Based Learning in the sector was low
(1.2%).
ƒ
ƒ
Just 4.3% of all enrolments were from ethnic minorities.
ƒ
The majority of learners were under 19.
Work Based Learning: Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships
ƒ
57% of Apprenticeship enrolments were for Advanced Apprenticeships.
ƒ
The South had the largest number of Advanced Apprenticeship enrolments.
ƒ
The North West had the largest number of standard Apprenticeship enrolments.
ƒ
The most commonly taken course was NVQ Maintenance and Repair (Light Vehicle).
ƒ
Only 1.4% of those enrolling were female.
ƒ
Ethnic minorities
were comparatively
less likely
to take part in Advanced
Apprenticeships than standard Apprenticeships.
ƒ
Higher Education: Automotive Engineering
ƒ
More than 25% of HE courses in England took place in the West Midlands.
ƒ
The majority of courses were at first degree level, although a significant proportion were
Masters degrees (23.6%).
ƒ
The number of females taking part in HE courses in the UK was low (4.5%).
ƒ
Approximately two thirds of those studying were under 25.
ƒ
A representative proportion of students were from UK ethnic minorities.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 55 of 197
August 2006
5.10 Methodology
This section of the report attempts to quantify provision. Rather than mapping the number of
courses offered, using data from the funders of publicly available courses, this section of the
report attempts to provide information on the take up of learning, learner demographics and
achievement.
Data for England was provided for work based learning and Further Education by the LSC,
and for Higher Education by the HEFCE and by UCAS. However, due to variations in data
collection systems, the level and detail of the information available differed. Where
information gaps were identified, each funding council was approached for additional detail,
however the data was either unavailable or resources did not permit the supply of such data.
This will need to be reviewed in any future assessment of provision.
Therefore this section represents the most up-to-date and comprehensive overview of publicly
funded learner data that was available at the time of publication.
5.11 Further Education
The total number of enrolments on Further Education automotive courses in England in
2003/04 was 17,308, with male enrolments being significantly higher than female enrolments
(16,400 compared to 908 females, only 5.3%).
The vast majority of male and female learners had enrolled on Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
courses (91.1% of males and 86.9% of females), with a combined total of 90.9%. The next
most
frequent
enrolments
of
male
and
female
learners
were
in
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair (3.3% males and 6.3% females) and Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
(3.2% males and 2.5% females), similar proportions to 2002/2003.
Figure 18.
Number of enrolments by subject area and gender
Subject Area
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
Female
2
0.2%
23
2.5%
57
6.3%
23
2.5%
0
0.0%
2
0.2%
0
0.0%
1
0.1%
789
86.9%
1
0.1%
10
1.1%
908
100%
Male
8
0.0%
25
0.2%
535
3.3%
522
3.2%
10
0.1%
38
0.2%
22
0.1%
87
0.5%
14,936
91.1%
26
0.2%
191
1.2%
16,400
100%
Total
10
48
592
545
10
40
22
88
15,725
27
201
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 56 of 197
August 2006
As illustrated in the figure below, the majority of learners had enrolled on Level 1 automotive
courses, with 52.4% of males and 65.3% of females enrolling at this level. Level 2 followed,
with 30.0% of males and 25.4% of females enrolling at this level. Level 3 had the least
number of enrolments (17.4% of males and 9.3% of females).
Figure 19.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and gender
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
NA/NR
Grand Total
Female
593
231
84
0
908
Male
65.3%
25.4%
9.3%
0.0%
100%
8,589
4,927
2,861
23
16,400
Total
52.4%
30.0%
17.4%
0.1%
100%
9,182
5,158
2,945
23
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
The table below illustrates that out of all age groups, the under 19 age group had the highest
number of enrolments with 11,908, followed by 25 to 59 year olds (2,990) and 19 to 24 year
olds (2,272).
The vast majority of Vehicle Maintenance/Repair enrollers were under 19 (11,318 enrollers).
For the less popular courses, Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair was relatively popular
amongst those in the under 19 group (277 enrolments of 545 on the course in total). In
contrast, Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair had a significant proportion of enrolments (368 of
592 on the course in total) from older learners, aged over 25. Other courses tending to be
more popular amongst older learners included Vehicle Restoration and Forecourt Work.
Figure 20.
Number of enrolments by subject and age (percentages)
Subject Area
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/ Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
Under 19
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
95.0%
0.0%
0.5%
100%
19-24
0.1%
0.4%
3.1%
5.3%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.4%
88.7%
0.4%
1.0%
100%
25-59
0.2%
1.2%
11.5%
4.6%
0.3%
0.8%
0.0%
0.1%
77.5%
0.6%
3.0%
100%
60+
0.0%
0.7%
18.7%
6.7%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
53.7%
0.0%
19.4%
100%
Missing
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
Total
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
90.9%
0.0%
1.2%
100%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 57 of 197
August 2006
Figure 21.
Number of enrolments by level of subject and age (numbers)
Subject Area
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
Under
19
0
0
154
277
0
4
20
74
11,318
0
61
11,908
19-24
25-59
60+
3
9
70
120
1
10
2
10
2,015
9
23
2,272
7
37
343
139
9
25
0
4
2,317
18
91
2,990
0
1
25
9
0
1
0
0
72
0
26
134
Missin
g
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
Total
10
48
592
545
10
40
22
88
15,725
27
201
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
As previously mentioned, the under 19 age group contained the highest number of
enrolments in England overall (11,908). 57% (6,785) of under 19s enrolled on automotive
courses at Level 1, 29.5% (3,517) at Level 2 and 13.5% (1,606) at Level 3. The 25 to 59
category contained the second highest number of enrolments (2,990), which was broken
down into 1,407 enrolments at Level 1, 852 at Level 2 and 719 at Level 3. The 60 and over
group contained a total of 134 enrolments, with just under half registering at Level 1 (47.0%),
36.6% registering at Level 2 and 8.2% at Level 3.
Figure 22.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age (numbers)
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable /Not Reported
Grand Total
Under 19
6,785
3,517
1,606
0
11,908
19-24
926
738
608
0
2,272
25-59
1,407
852
719
12
2,990
60+
63
49
11
11
134
Missing
1
2
1
0
4
Total
9,182
5,158
2,945
23
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Figure 23.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age (percentages)
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable /Not Reported
Grand Total
Under 19
57.0%
29.5%
13.5%
0.0%
100.0%
19-24
40.8%
32.5%
26.8%
0.0%
100.0%
25-59
47.1%
28.5%
24.0%
0.4%
100.0%
60+
47.0%
36.6%
8.2%
8.2%
100.0%
Missing
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Total
53.1%
29.8%
17.0%
0.1%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
When examining the number of enrolments by subject area and ethnicity, the vast proportion
were from White learners (13,878), followed by Asian learners (1,302) and Black learners
(920). Overall, ethnicity followed the same trend as age and gender; more than 80% of
learners from each ethnic group had enrolled to study Vehicle Maintenance/Repair courses.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 58 of 197
August 2006
A higher proportion of Chinese learners studied Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair than any
other ethnic group (4.0%), while a higher proportion of White learners studied Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair than other groups (3.8%).
Figure 24.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (percentages)
Subject Area
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Mixed
Race
0.0%
1.1%
2.0%
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/Electronic
Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Painting/Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
0.0%
0.6%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
3.4%
Total
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
N/A
N/R
0.4%
0.0%
6.7%
0.1%
0.2%
3.8%
2.2%
4.0%
1.1%
3.2%
2.1%
4.7%
3.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.1%
1.0%
92.5%
0.0%
0.7%
100.0%
0.1%
2.9%
92.3%
0.1%
0.4%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
94.7%
0.0%
1.3%
100.0%
0.0%
0.9%
94.0%
0.0%
0.3%
100.0%
0.0%
0.2%
90.7%
0.2%
1.3%
100.0%
0.7%
3.8%
91.0%
0.0%
0.3%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
84.8%
0.4%
1.6%
100.0%
0.1%
0.5%
90.9%
0.1%
1.2%
100.0%
Total
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Figure 25.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (numbers)
Subject Area
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
0
0
0
Mixed
Race
0
4
7
8
33
527
0
3
3
N/A
N/R
2
0
33
0
8
7
0
0
15
44
20
3
4
445
6
23
545
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
34
0
0
7
0
10
40
14
13
1,205
0
9
1,302
1
27
849
1
4
920
0
0
71
0
1
75
0
3
329
0
1
350
5
34
12,589
24
177
13,878
2
11
264
0
1
290
0
0
418
2
8
493
22
88
15,725
27
201
17,308
10
48
592
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Level 1 had the highest number of enrolments in England for all ethnic groups, with over half
of the total number of enrolments (53.1% / 9,182 enrolments). Mixed Race learners were
more likely to enrol at Level 1 than any other ethnic group (58.3%). Similarly, a higher
proportion of Asian learners enrolled at Level 2 (32.5%), while Chinese learners were more
likely to enrol at Level 3 than other ethnic groups (24.0%).
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 59 of 197
August 2006
Figure 26.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and ethnicity (percentages)
Level of
Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable / Not
Recorded
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
49.3%
26.7%
24.0%
0.0%
Mixed
Race
58.3%
29.4%
12.3%
0.0%
52.2%
32.5%
15.4%
0.0%
54.2%
31.6%
14.1%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45.5%
35.9%
18.6%
0.0%
N/A
N/R
53.3%
22.3%
23.5%
0.8%
53.1%
29.6%
17.2%
0.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
53.1%
29.8%
17.0%
0.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Figure 27.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and ethnicity (numbers)
Level of
Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable / Not
Recorded
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
37
20
18
0
Mixed
Race
204
103
43
0
679
423
200
0
499
291
130
0
1,302
920
132
104
54
0
N/A
N/R
263
110
116
4
7,368
4,107
2,384
19
75
350
13,878
Total
9,182
5,158
2,945
23
290
493
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair, Vehicle Exhaust Systems and Vehicle Painting/Spraying all had
100% of learners enrolling at Level 1. In addition, over 50% of registrations in Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair, Vehicle Cleaning and Vehicle Maintenance/Repair were also at this
level.
Forecourt Work (garage sales operations), Vehicle Finishing and Vehicle Restoration also
had 100% of learners enrolling at Level 2, while Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair had just
over 50% of enrolments at this level.
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair,
Vehicle
Body
Maintenance/Repair,
Vehicle
Electrical/Electronic Systems and Vehicle Maintenance/Repair were the only courses to have
enrolments at Level 3.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 60 of 197
August 2006
Figure 28.
Number of enrolments by subject area and qualification level
No. of Enrolments By Subject Area and Qualification Level
100%
80%
NA/NR
60%
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
40%
20%
0%
Bicycle
Maintenance /
Repair
Forecourt
Work
Motorcycle
Maintenance /
Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance /
Repair
Vehicle
Cleaning
Vehicle
Electrical /
Electronic
Systems
Vehicle
Exhaust
Systems
Vehicle
Finishing
Vehicle
Maintenance /
Repair
Vehicle
Painting /
Spraying
Vehicle
Restoration
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
When examining the number of enrolments in England by mode of study and subject area it is
apparent that Bicycle Maintenance/Repair and Vehicle Exhaust Systems / Vehicle Finishing
both had 100% of learners enrolled for full-time courses. In addition, Vehicle Cleaning,
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair and Vehicle Restoration had a greater proportion of learners
enrolled full-time for their chosen course.
Conversely, Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair, Vehicle Electrical/Electronic Systems and
Vehicle Painting / Spraying all had a greater proportion of learners enrolled part-time for their
chosen course, with Forecourt Work (garage sales operations) having 100% of learners
enrolled on a full-time basis for the course.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 61 of 197
August 2006
Figure 29.
Number of enrolments by mode of study and subject area
No. of Enrolm ents by Mode of Study and Subject Area
100%
2
3593
65
80%
283
385
60%
Vehicle
Exhaust
Syst ems
Vehicle
Finishing
Full Time
136
8
4
262
207
20%
Part-Time
26
12132
Forecourt
Work
88
Bicycle
M aintenance /
Repair
40%
22
10
36
48
0
0%
M ot orcycle Vehicle Body
M aintenance / M aint enance /
Repair
Repair
Vehicle
Cleaning
Vehicle
Elect rical /
Electronic
Systems
Vehicle
M aintenance /
Repair
Vehicle
Paint ing /
Spraying
Vehicle
Rest orat ion
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
The split between full and part time courses also varied with the level of qualification. Level 1
courses were much more likely to be taken full time than Level 3; however, even at level 3,
part-time enrolments were in a minority (41.3%).
Figure 30.
Number of enrolments by mode of study and level of qualification
No. of Enrolm ents by Mode of Study and Level of Qualification
100%
90%
1768
1434
80%
1216
70%
60%
20
50%
40%
Part-Time
Full Time
7414
3724
30%
1729
20%
10%
3
0%
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
NA/NR
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 62 of 197
August 2006
5.11.1 Achievement in Further Education
Figure 31 and 32 illustrate achievement level by subject area. Overall, it is evident that 48.6%
of learners achieved their learning aim in 2003/04 (8,413), 4.2% of learners achieved
elements of their learning aim (732), and 36.2% failed to achieve their set learning aims
(6,268).
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair had the highest number of enrolments (15,725). Within this,
there were varying levels of achievement; 7,586 learners (48.2%) achieved their set learning
aims in 2003/04; 692 learners (4.4%) achieved elements of their learning aims; 5,757 learners
(36.6%) failed to meet their learning aims; and 1,538 continued with their learning aims
beyond 2003/04.
From the remaining courses it is apparent that Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair had the
second highest proportion of learners achieving their set learning aims (4.5%), followed by
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair (3.2%). Similarly, the same courses had the second and
third highest proportion of learners achieving elements of their learning outcomes in the given
year; Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair with 2.6% and Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair with
1.6%. Vehicle Finishing had the highest proportion of learners taking examinations, with
5.2%, followed by Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair with 4.0%.
Figure 31.
Achievement level by subject area (numbers)
Subject Area
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
Achieved
No
Achievement
0
14
174
Exam Taken
Continuing
Total
8
4
381
Partially
Achieved
2
0
19
0
0
7
0
30
11
10
48
592
273
12
180
5
75
545
10
31
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
10
40
21
37
7,586
25
37
8,413
0
6
692
0
1
732
1
36
5,757
2
95
6,268
0
9
152
0
1
174
0
0
1,538
0
67
1,721
22
88
15,725
27
201
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 63 of 197
August 2006
Figure 32.
Achievement level by subject area (percentages)
Subject Area
Achieved
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Forecourt Work
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Restoration
Grand Total
No
Achievement
0.0%
0.2%
2.8%
Exam Taken
Continuing
Total
0.1%
0.0%
4.5%
Partially
Achieved
0.3%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
3.2%
1.6%
2.9%
2.9%
4.4%
3.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
90.2%
0.3%
0.4%
100.0%
0.0%
0.8%
94.5%
0.0%
0.1%
100.0%
0.0%
0.6%
91.8%
0.0%
1.5%
100.0%
0.0%
5.2%
87.4%
0.0%
0.6%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
89.4%
0.0%
3.9%
100.0%
0.1%
0.5%
90.9%
0.1%
1.2%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Due to the high number of enrolments at Level 1 (9,182) it is not surprising to note that the
highest proportion of learners that achieved or partially achieved their aims were studying at
this level. Of the learners who continued their learning aims beyond the allocated time, the
majority were studying at Level 3 (50.1%, 863 learners).
Figure 33.
Achievement level by qualification (percentages)
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable /
Not Recorded
Grand Total
Achieved
No
Achievement
52.8%
32.4%
14.8%
0.0%
Exam Taken
Continuing
Total
62.4%
26.2%
11.2%
0.2%
Partially
Achieved
45.6%
30.9%
23.5%
0.0%
51.7%
24.7%
23.6%
0.0%
11.7%
37.8%
50.1%
0.3%
53.1%
29.8%
17.0%
0.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Figure 34.
Achievement level by qualification (numbers)
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Not Applicable /
Not Recorded
Grand Total
Achieved
No
Achievement
3,308
2,030
930
0
Exam Taken
Continuing
Total
5,248
2,208
939
18
Partially
Achieved
334
226
172
0
90
43
41
0
202
651
863
5
9,182
5,158
2,945
23
8,413
732
6,268
174
1,721
17,308
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 64 of 197
August 2006
5.11.2 Funding for LSC Further Education provision
There was an overall total of £34,797,743 of funding for retail automotive Further Education
courses in 2003/04, with £25,370,518 from core funding (based on the national base rate
figure for each qualification). Total funding also includes fee remission, achievement funding
and additional learner support.
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair had the highest level of core and total funding, accounting for
94% of all funding; £23,864,012 from core funding and £32,835,276 (94.4%) from total
funding. Vehicle Cleaning on the other hand was found to have the lowest level of funding,
with only £1,758 from core funding and £2,171 from total funding.
Figure 35.
Funding by subject area
Subject Area
Core Funding
Forecourt Work
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Cleaning
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Restoration
Vehicle Painting / Spraying
Vehicle Exhaust Systems
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Bicycle Maintenance/Repair
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
£3,718
£175,531
£23,864,012
£1,758
£566,424
£257,207
£5,498
£52,499
£14,206
£7,094
£422,572
£25,370,518
Total Funding
(%)
0.0%
0.6%
94.4%
0.0%
2.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
100.0%
Total Funding
£3,772
£230,832
£32,835,276
£2,171
£774,529
£298,776
£6,696
£78,660
£16,575
£8,955
£541,501
£34,797,743
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
Further inspection of the figures revealed that Level 1 received the largest amount of funding
in terms of both core and total funding, accounting for 52.5% of the overall funding;
£12,882,228 of core funding and £18,265,655 of total funding.
Figure 36.
Funding by level of qualification
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
NA/NR
Grand Total
Core Funding
£12,882,228
£7,584,230
£4,898,233
£5,828
£25,370,518
Total Funding (%)
52.5%
29.2%
18.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Total Funding
£18,265,655
£10,167,512
£6,357,924
£6,652
£34,797,743
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
With the highest number of learners, the North West received the most funding accounting for
18% of both core and total funding (£4,641,281 of core funding and £6,560,818 of total
funding).
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 65 of 197
August 2006
With only 847 learners, the North East received the least amount of funding accounting for
only 3% of core and total funding (£981,918 of core funding and £1,323,853 of total funding).
Figure 37.
Funding by region
Region
East Midlands
East of England
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humberside
Grand Total
Number of Learners
1,162
1,748
2,349
847
3,378
2,752
1,289
2,135
1,648
17,308
Core Funding
£1,700,081
£2,669,809
£4,098,794
£981,918
£4,641,281
£4,256,926
£2,022,776
£2,940,473
£2,058,459
£25,370,518
Total Funding
£2,362,940
£3,609,108
£5,471,320
£1,323,853
£6,560,818
£5,789,811
£2,882,378
£4,004,700
£2,792,814
£34,797,743
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR 0304 F05
5.12 Work Based Learning
There were a total of 42,329 enrolments onto automotive Work Based Learning courses in the
academic year 2003/04 in England, with a significant difference between males and females
(41,830 males and 499 females). The vast majority of males enrolled in Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair (36,031 / 86.1%), followed by Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair with
5,187 enrolments (12.4%). Although there were significantly fewer females enrolled onto
work based learning courses, they follow the same trend as males, with 445 women enrolling
in Vehicle Maintenance/Repair, followed by Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair.
Figure 38.
Number of enrolments by subject area and gender
Subject Area
Motor Trade Sales
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Vehicle Engine Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
Female
1
0
45
1
0
7
445
499
Male
0.2%
0.0%
9.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.4%
89.2%
100%
28
16
5,187
46
7
515
36,031
41,830
0.1%
0.0%
12.4%
0.1%
0.0%
1.2%
86.1%
100%
Total
29
16
5,232
47
7
522
36,476
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
When examining the number of enrolments by qualification and gender, it is evident that the
highest proportion of enrolments for both males and females were at Level 3; 60.7% males
and 51.9% females. Level 2 had the second highest proportion of enrolments for both sexes;
39.1% males and 47.7% females.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 66 of 197
August 2006
Figure 39.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and gender
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Grand Total
Female
2
238
259
499
Male
0.4%
47.7%
51.9%
100%
101
16,346
25,383
41,830
Total
0.2%
39.2%
60.6%
42,329
0.2%
39.1%
60.7%
100%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
As previously mentioned, there were a total of 42,329 enrolments in automotive Work Based
Learning across England, with the vast majority of learners being aged 19 years and under
(30,997 enrolments / 73.2%), followed by the age group category of 19 to 24 years (11,289
enrolments). The highest proportion of enrolments in each of the age categories was found in
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair; 26,779 enrolments for under 19’s, 9,665 for 19 to 24’s and 32
for 25 to 59’s.
For the 25 to 59 age category there were no enrolments for Motor Trade Sales, Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair,
Vehicle
Electrical/electronic
Systems
or
Vehicle
Engine
Maintenance/Repair and Vehicle Finishing.
Figure 40.
Number of enrolments by subject area and age
Subject Area
Motor Trade Sales
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Engine Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
Under 19
12
0.0%
6
0.0%
3,751
12.1%
22
0.1%
17
10
1,470
25
0.2%
0.1%
13.0%
0.2%
0
0
11
0
0.0%
0.0%
25.6%
0.0%
Total
29
16
5,232
47
1
426
26,779
30,997
6
96
9,665
11,289
0.1%
0.9%
85.6%
100%
0
0
32
43
0.0%
0.0%
74.4%
100%
7
522
36,476
42,329
0.0%
1.4%
86.4%
100%
19-24
25-59
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
55.6% of under 19 year olds had enrolled in Level 3 qualifications (17,235), followed by Level
2 with 44.1% (13,685). 19 to 24 year olds were more likely to enrol in more advanced
courses (74.2% for Level 3 and 25.6% for Level 2) and 25 to 59 year olds even more so
(83.7% for Level 3 and 16.3% for Level 2).
Figure 41.
Number of enrolments by level of qualification and age
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Grand Total
Under 19
77
0.2%
13,685
44.1%
17,235
55.6%
30,997
100%
19-24
26
0.2%
2,892
25.6%
8,371
74.2%
11,289
100%
25-59
0
7
36
43
0.0%
16.3%
83.7%
100%
Total
103
16,584
25,642
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 67 of 197
August 2006
When examining the number of enrolments by subject area and ethnicity, it was apparent that
the vast majority were White learners (40,526), followed by Asian learners (626) and Black
learners (377). Overall, ethnicity followed the same trend as age and gender; the learners
from each ethnic group primarily studied Vehicle Maintenance/Repair courses (with
approximately 80% of course enrolments seen in each ethnic group). A higher proportion of
Black learners studied Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair than any other ethnic group
(19.4%), while a higher proportion of Mixed Race learners studied Vehicle Finishing than
other ethnic groups (3.8%).
Figure 42.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (percentages)
Subject Area
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
0.0%
0.0%
Mixed
Race
0.0%
0.0%
Total
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
N/R
0.8%
1.2%
Motor Trade Sales
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle
Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Engine
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair
and Total
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
15.5%
19.4%
11.1%
14.7%
12.2%
17.7%
12.0%
12.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
81.3%
3.2%
77.2%
0.0%
88.9%
5.4%
79.9%
1.2%
86.4%
0.4%
81.9%
1.2%
84.7%
1.2%
86.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
0.1%
0.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Figure 43.
Number of enrolments by subject and ethnicity (numbers)
Subject Area
Motor Trade Sales
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle
Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Engine
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
White
Other
0
0
Mixed
Race
0
0
26
13
0
0
N/A
N/R
2
3
1
0
0
0
97
73
4
41
4,945
43
29
5,232
1
1
0
0
45
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
18
509
12
291
0
32
15
223
473
35,017
1
199
3
205
522
36,476
626
377
36
279
40,526
243
242
42,329
29
16
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Level 3 qualifications had the highest number of enrolments across the ethnic groups, with
Chinese learners in particular having proportionally more learners enrolling at this level when
compared to the other ethnic groups (80.6%). Mixed Race learners had proportionally more
enrolments for Level 2 qualifications, with 47.3%, followed closely by Asian learners with
42.0%.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 68 of 197
August 2006
Figure 44.
Number of enrolments by qualification level and ethnicity (percentages)
Level of
Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
0.5%
42.0%
57.5%
100.0%
0.3%
41.4%
58.4%
100.0%
0.0%
19.4%
80.6%
100.0%
Mixed
Race
0.0%
47.3%
52.7%
100.0%
White
Other
0.2%
39.1%
60.7%
100.0%
0.0%
30.9%
69.1%
100.0%
N/A
N/R
0.4%
44.2%
55.4%
100.0%
Total
0.2%
39.2%
60.6%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Figure 45.
Number of enrolments by qualification level and ethnicity (numbers)
Level of
Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Grand Total
Asian
Black
Chinese
3
263
360
626
1
156
220
377
0
7
29
36
Mixed
Race
0
132
147
279
White
Other
98
15,844
24,584
40,526
0
75
168
243
N/A
N/R
1
107
134
242
Total
103
16,584
25,642
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
When examining the number of enrolments on Work Based Learning courses it was apparent
that Motorcycle Maintenance and Repair and Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Systems had
all of their enrolments at Level 3. Motor Trade Sales and Vehicle Engine Maintenance and
Repair both had the majority of enrolments at Level 3, with 82.8% of enrolments at Level 3 for
Motor Trade Sales and 85.7% for Vehicle Engine Maintenance/Repair. Vehicle Finishing was
the only course to have just Level 2 enrolments, while Vehicle Maintenance/Repair and
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair had approximately 40% of enrolments for this level.
Figure 46. Number of enrolments by subject area and level of study
No. of Enrolm ents on WBL Courses
100%
90%
6
Level 3
522
50%
47
16
60%
24
70%
22515
3034
80%
Level 2
Level 1
40%
1
10%
5
20%
13858
2198
30%
0%
Motor Trade
Sales
Motorcycle
Vehicle Body
Maintenance / Maintenance /
Repair
Repair
Vehicle
Electrical /
Electronic
Systems
Vehicle
Engine
Maintenance /
Repair
Vehicle
Finishing
Vehicle
Maintenance /
Repair
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 69 of 197
August 2006
5.12.1 Achievement in Work Based Learning
Overall, it was reported that 8.0% of learners achieved their learning aims in 2003/04 (3,762),
with an additional 1.0% of learners achieving elements of their learning aims in the given year
(431) and 26.0% failing to achieve their set learning aims (11,180).
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair had the highest number of learners (36,476). Within this, there
were varying levels of achievement; 3,273 learners (8%) achieved their set learning aims in
2003/04; 357 learners achieved elements of their learning aims; 9,379 learners (25.0%) failed
to meet their learning aims; and 23,431 (64.0%) continued their learning aims beyond
2003/04.
From the remaining courses it is apparent that Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair had the
second highest proportion of learners achieving their set learning aims (12.1%), followed by
Vehicle Finishing (0.6%). Similarly, the same courses had the second and third highest
proportion of learners achieving elements of their learning outcomes in the given year;
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair with 14.4% and Vehicle Finishing with 1.6%. Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair also had the second highest proportion of learners taking exams in the
subject with 33.3%.
Figure 47.
Subject Area
Achievement level by subject area (percentages)
Achieved
Partially
Achieved
0.2%
0.7%
No
Achievement
0.1%
0.1%
Motor Trade Sales
0.1%
Motorcycle
0.1%
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
12.1%
14.4%
14.4%
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Engine
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
0.6%
1.6%
1.4%
Vehicle
87.0%
82.8%
83.9%
Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 70 of 197
Exam Taken
Continuing
Total
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
33.3%
11.5%
12.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%
1.3%
87.1%
1.2%
86.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
August 2006
Figure 48.
Achievement level by subject area (numbers)
Subject Area
Achieved
Motor Trade Sales
Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Electrical/electronic
Systems
Vehicle Engine
Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Finishing
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Grand Total
No
Achievement
12
7
Exam
Taken
0
0
Continuing
Total
3
5
Partially
Achieved
1
3
13
1
29
16
456
62
1,615
18
3,081
5,232
4
1
9
0
33
47
0
0
2
0
5
7
21
3,273
3,762
7
357
431
156
9,379
11,180
0
36
54
338
23,431
26,902
522
36,476
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
The vast majority of learners were continuing their learning aims beyond 2003/04; 26,902
learners. 11,180 learners failed to achieve their learning outcomes within the given year, 431
learners achieved elements of their learning targets and 3,762 learners achieved their
learning aims within the allocated time.
The stages of achievement of learners for each level were broadly in line with the total
proportion of learners taking that level, except that a larger number of Level 2 learners were
awaiting results from their examinations.
Figure 49.
Achievement level by qualification level (percentages)
Level of Qualification
Partially
No
Achieved
Achievement
Level 1
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
Level 2
42.0%
44.3%
46.4%
Level 3
57.7%
55.7%
53.3%
Grand Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
Figure 50.
Exam
Taken
0.0%
61.1%
38.9%
100.0%
Continuing
Total
0.2%
35.7%
64.1%
100%
0.2%
39.2%
60.6%
100%
Achievement level by qualification level (numbers)
Level of Qualification
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Grand Total
Achieved
Achieved
11
1,579
2,172
3,762
Partially
Achieved
0
191
240
431
No
Achievement
32
5,186
5,962
11,180
Exam
Taken
0
33
21
54
Continuing
Total
60
9,595
17,247
26,902
103
16,584
25,642
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
It is evident from the figure overleaf that the largest number of enrolments were registered
with providers who contracted with the National Office (18,334), who provide services to
national employer training schemes such as that run by Kwik Fit. 66 The region with the most
enrolments was the North West with 5,428 registrations, followed by the South West with
66
LSC Work Based Learning 03/04 data, Automotive Retail Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 71 of 197
August 2006
4,314. Both of these figures indicate participation significantly in excess of their share of the
national population. The region with the lowest number of enrolments was the East Midlands
with 1,264 enrolments.
Figure 51.
Number of enrolments by region
Region
East Midlands
East of England
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humberside
National Office
Grand Total
Total
1,264
1,639
1,745
1,634
5,428
3,076
4,314
2,081
2,814
18,334
42,329
Source: Learning and Skills Council ILR WBL 0304 Full Year
5.12.2 Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships
All of the data in this section is taken from the Review of Patterns of Provision Annual
Benchmarks 2002-03, commissioned by Automotive Skills. The data only covers England.
The total number of learners who started an Apprenticeship or Advanced Apprenticeship in a
subject related to the retail automotive sector in the 2002-03 academic year was 10,263.
These enrolments mainly occurred in July, August and September, as can be seen in the
graph overleaf.
Figure 52.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by month
and level
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 72 of 197
August 2006
The enrolments were not evenly spread across England. As for many regional breakdowns of
statistics for training in the sector a concentration can be seen in the North West, although it
is notable that a large proportion of qualifications shown for this area are at the standard
Apprenticeship level. The area with the largest number of Advanced Apprenticeships is the
South East, followed by the South West. By far the largest number of standard
Apprenticeships were started in the North West, followed by Yorkshire and Humber.
Considering the large population, very few Apprenticeships of any type were started in the
Greater London region. The North East was the area with the smallest number of enrolments.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 73 of 197
August 2006
Figure 53.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by region
and level
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
Region Abbreviations in the graph above:
Abbr.
EE
EM
GL
NE
NW
Full Title
East of England
East Midlands
Greater London
North East
North West
Abbr.
SE
SW
WM
YH
N/A
Full Title
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and the Humber
Data not available
Overall, there were 5,857 enrolments on the Advanced Apprenticeship and 4,437 enrolments
on the standard Apprenticeship. Overall only 1.4% of those enrolling were female. The
majority of enrolments for both were in Vehicle Maintenance/Repair, as shown in the table
below.
Figure 54.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by type
Group
NVQ Title
Advanced Apprenticeships
Apprenticeship
Vehicle
Maintenance & Repair (Heavy
Maintenance/
Vehicle)
Repair
Maintenance & Repair (Light
Body and
Body Fitting
parts
Body Repair
6
0.1%
1
0.0%
operation
Body Repair and Refinishing
759
13.%
646
14.6%
(number/% of cost)
(Number/% of cost)
6
0.1%
0
0.0%
749
81.4%
3698
83.5%
0
0.0%
4
0.1%
Vehicle)
Parts and supply
Parts Operation
311
5.3%
76
1.7%
Sales
Vehicle Sales
3
0.1%
4
0.1%
5834
100.0%
4429
100.0%
Total
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 74 of 197
August 2006
In terms of ethnicity, 5.4% of those enrolling on a standard Apprenticeship were from ethnic
minorities, compared to 3.7% of those enrolling on an Advanced Apprenticeship. This shows
a significant trend toward lower level training among ethnic minority groups. A full summary is
provided in the table below, although detailed ethnicity information has been merged into
broad categories due to the small numbers in each group.
The percentages show the proportion of enrolments from each ethnic group for
Apprenticeships or Advanced Apprenticeships. It is noticeable that the percentage of White
British learners enrolling on Advanced Apprenticeship courses is significantly higher than for
any minority group.
Figure 55.
Enrolments in Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships in 2002/03 by ethnic
group
Ethnicity
Asian / Asian British
Black / Black British
Mixed
White British
White Irish or White Other
Other / Chinese
Not Known / Not Provided
Advanced Apprenticeship
(Number / % for that ethnic
group)
71
50.4%
47
47.5%
31
44.3%
5661
57.3%
27
43.5%
38
48.7%
25
41.0%
Apprenticeship
(Number / % for that ethnic
group)
70
49.6%
52
52.5%
39
55.7%
4219
42.7%
35
56.5%
40
51.3%
36
59.0%
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
The data for Apprenticeships also contains information on disabilities, although it is limited in
that it groups together all those with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or ‘health
problems’. In general, more learners that fall into one or more of these categories were
undertaking Apprenticeships (17.9%) than Advanced Apprenticeships (8.0%).
Another measure of this is the proportion of learners receiving additional public funding due to
social and/or learning needs. Overall, 19.6% of those on Apprenticeship courses were
receiving this type of funding, but only 1.6% of those on Advanced Apprenticeship courses
were in receipt of such assistance.
Data was also available on those who left courses before completion. Learners taking
Apprenticeships were considerably more likely to leave before completion than those taking
Advanced Apprenticeships; 33.2% and 23.1% respectively.
Female learners were significantly more likely than male learners to drop out of an
Apprenticeship or Advanced Apprenticeship; 40.1% compared to 27.4%. Those from an
ethnic minority were also more likely to leave a course before completion; 32.7% compared to
27.3% for those in the ‘White British’ category.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 75 of 197
August 2006
Those with learning difficulties, physical disability or illness were only slightly more likely to
drop out than those without such problems; 31.7% compared to 26.9%. Those in receipt of
‘additional needs’ funding were significantly more likely to leave a course before completion,
particularly those with additional social needs; 50.0% or more of this group left Apprenticeship
or Advanced Apprenticeship courses before completion in 2002/03.
Figure 56.
Percentage of learners with Additional Needs leaving before course completion in
2002/03
‘Additional Needs’
funding status
Percent Leaving in
2002/03 before course
completion
No Additional Needs
Learning Needs
Social Needs
26.7%
34.6%
50.0%
Learning and Social
Needs
54.5%
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
Figure 57.
Percentage of learners on Apprenticeships leaving before course completion in
2002/03
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
As can be seen in the graph above, the tendency of learners on Apprenticeships and
Advanced Apprenticeships to leave before course completion was not dramatically affected
by age, fluctuating around the 30% mark for age groups between 17 and 23. That said, it
appears that learners aged 16 were significantly more likely to complete their course than any
other group, with only 12.2% leaving the course before completion in 2002/03.
Leavers were also more likely to leave at the start of their course than at the end. The drop
out rate decreased rapidly after learners had completed the first 12 weeks of their courses.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 76 of 197
August 2006
Figure 58.
Percentage of learners on Apprenticeships leaving in each four week block (2002/03)
Source: Wallace, M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
5.13 Higher Education
As can been seen in the figure below, Automotive Engineering related Higher Education (HE)
learning in England was geographically concentrated, with over a quarter (25.2%) taking
place in the West Midlands and 19.1% in the East of England. Conversely, the North
Eaststood out as a region containing no students undertaking Automotive Engineering related
HE studies in 2002/03, although data from UCAS for 2007 entry suggests that a small number
of courses are now available in the North East. The number of enrolments on these courses
is, as yet, unknown.
Figure 59.
Automotive Engineering HE students by region
Region of institution
Region of Institution
North
East
North
West
Yorkshire
& The
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East
London
South
East
South
West
Total
(England)
0
0.0%
167
7.0%
271
11.4%
328
13.8%
601
25.2%
455
19.1%
209
8.8%
320
13.4%
30
1.3%
2,381
100.0%
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited, 2002/03
More than three fifths of learners (62.0%) on Automotive Engineering courses in England
were undertaking their First Degree, while just over a fifth (23.6%) were undertaking a
Masters degree. No Automotive Engineering HE learners were on informal courses or
studying diplomas or certificates of higher education.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 77 of 197
August 2006
Within the majority of the English regions, First Degree Level courses were the most common
form of HE Automotive Engineering study, mirroring the national picture. However, there were
regional variations. In the South West, there were no First Degree courses, while in the West
Midlands more than half were studying for Masters courses or unspecified types of
qualification.
HNDs and HNCs were most popular in the South West, where no other course type was
available, and the South East, where they made up 26.6% of all courses taken. Masters
degrees were most popular in the East of England (38.9%) and East Midlands (36.9%), but
were not studied in a large number of regions.
Figure 60.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region
(percentages)
North West
Yorkshire &
The
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East
London
South East
South West
Total
(England)
Doctorate degree
Masters degree
Postgraduate
diploma
First degree
Foundation degree
Diploma / Certif. in
HE
HND/HNC
Other
Grand Total
North East
Qualification aim
*
*
*
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
30.3%
3.0%
3.0%
36.9%
1.5%
0.0%
28.3%
0.0%
0.0%
38.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
23.6%
0.7%
*
*
*
94.0%
0.0%
0.0%
63.5%
0.0%
0.0%
55.5%
0.0%
0.0%
48.6%
1.7%
0.0%
61.1%
0.0%
0.0%
84.7%
0.0%
0.0%
68.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
62.0%
0.4%
0.0%
*
*
*
1.2%
3.6%
100%
3.3%
0.0%
100%
3.0%
0.0%
100%
1.5%
20.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
15.3%
0.0%
100%
26.6%
0.0%
100%
100%
0.0%
100%
7.4%
5.3%
100%
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited, 2002/03
Figure 61.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region
(numbers)
North West
Yorkshire &
The
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East
London
South East
South West
Total
(England)
Doctorate degree
Masters degree
Postgraduate
diploma
First degree
Foundation degree
Diploma / Cert. in HE
HND/HNC
Other
Grand Total
North East
Qualification aim
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
82
8
10
121
5
0
170
0
0
177
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
0
0
0
11
563
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
157
0
0
2
6
167
172
0
0
9
0
271
182
0
0
10
0
328
292
10
0
9
120
601
278
0
0
0
0
455
177
0
0
32
0
209
219
0
0
85
0
320
0
0
0
30
0
30
1,477
10
0
177
126
2,381
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited, 2002/03
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 78 of 197
August 2006
Figure 62.
Number of Automotive Engineering HE students by qualification aim and region
100%
No formal qualification
90%
% of training
80%
70%
Other formal HE undergraduate
qualification
60%
HND/HNC
50%
30%
Diploma or Certificate in Higher
Education
20%
Foundation degree
40%
10%
First degree
Postgraduate diploma
Masters degree
ks
hi
re
No
rt
No h E
r th a s t
&
T h We
e
s
Ea Hu t
st m
W M i be r
e s dla
t M nd
id s
lan
ds
Ea
Lo s t
So nd o
ut n
So h E
u t as
t
h
W
es
W t
a
No S les
r th c o t
er la n
n
Ir e d
lan
d
0%
Yo
r
Doctorate degree
Region
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited, 2002/03
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 79 of 197
August 2006
6 Employer and Training Provider Perspectives
6.1 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
Retail automotive sector employees have consistently received less job-related training than
the national average over the last six years, according to the Labour Force Survey.
ƒ
Despite this, training spend per employee in the sector appeared to be significantly above
average, and employees in the 16-24 age range were slightly more likely to receive training
than across all sectors.
ƒ
Female employees were significantly less likely to receive training than male employees.
ƒ
Employers were the primary funding source for the majority of employee training. Most
employers felt there should be a mixture of employer and public funding for training, although
opinion varied as to where the division should be. Funding levels were felt to be a significant
limitation on training.
ƒ
Providers highlighted a major gap in vocational training funding for over 19s. In England this is
being addressed in policy by the creation of a ‘Level 2 entitlement’, which extends training
funding to anyone without a Level 2 NVQ or equivalent qualification, irrespective of their age.
ƒ
Costs of training go beyond the direct cost of the training course. For smaller employers, loss
of productivity and/or the cost of finding temporary cover for an employee undergoing training
may be more significant. For those in rural areas, the cost of travel and accommodation may
also be a major issue.
ƒ
Training providers, including CoVEs, were concerned about declining levels of funding for FE.
ƒ
A need for closer partnership between training providers and employers was identified.
ƒ
Legislation and supplier / customer demands were perceived as being major drivers of
training.
ƒ
On one hand, training was recognised to improve employee loyalty and retention; however, on
the other it was thought to make a business more vulnerable to ‘poaching’ by other employers.
ƒ
Many larger and ‘exemplar’ employers saw management training as a priority; however,
survey data indicates that most small companies in the sector tend to concentrate on technical
skills.
ƒ
Basic literacy and numeracy were seen as an increasing problem among young people, by
both employers and training providers.
ƒ
Employers used a wide variety of methods to determine which skills were critical to the
business.
ƒ
Targeting training so as to best increase profitability was considered difficult by some
employers.
ƒ
The most common method of identifying training needs was to monitor the performance of
individual employees.
ƒ
Only 7.5% of employers felt that there was no link between training and business
performance.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 80 of 197
August 2006
ƒ
The structure of provision and funding of courses was felt to be confusing for employers and a
need for a single authoritative information point and recognised approval system was
highlighted.
ƒ
Formal planning and budgeting of training was most likely in medium-sized companies. Larger
companies sometimes found company-wide schemes difficult to administer. In some cases
high turnover of staff was felt to be a difficulty.
ƒ
Training providers used a wide variety of data sources to assess and plan for demand for
training. In general they felt that demand from the sector was increasing. Employers were
believed to demand training mostly at Level 3.
ƒ
Apprenticeships were broadly thought to have been a success in attracting employers, but
more flexibility was felt to be needed, particularly in terms of targeting younger and older age
groups.
ƒ
Training providers felt that the range of courses in technical skills was already adequate, so
additional provision would be best focused in other areas. However, it was also recognised
that technical courses needed to be kept up to date with modern technology.
ƒ
Training providers believed that retail automotive sector training had a negative image among
many parents and school teachers, and as a result tended to be seen as a low status option.
ƒ
The level of cooperation between training providers was felt to have been reduced by the
introduction of competition between colleges into the FE sector.
ƒ
Engagement with employers was made difficult by a lack of interest among many employers,
and by intense competition and fear of ‘poaching’ of staff meaning that sometimes employers
were reluctant to use the same training provider as any rival firm.
ƒ
Employer input into course design was felt to be significant for larger employers, although
limited by the rigidity of some of the qualifications involved.
ƒ
Major reasons for using internal provision highlighted by employers in England included
convenience (56.1%), the availability of training skills within the company (36.4%), and the
ability to ensure good quality (28.8%).
ƒ
Major reasons to use external provision among employers in England included lack of internal
training capability (36%) and the belief that external training was of higher quality (21%).
6.2 Methodology
In addition to the training supplied by the public sector through further and higher education
institutions, schools and work-based learning providers, training is also delivered by
employers in the workplace. Therefore, as part of the assessment of current provision, it is
important that this activity is also captured. To achieve this, data has been taken from a range
of secondary sources, such as the SSDA Matrix and the National Employers Skills Survey
(NESS).
This data has been supplemented by a series of in-depth interviews with providers of training
from across the United Kingdom as well as interviews with employers who were known to be
advocates of training either through in-house training schemes or through links with public or
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 81 of 197
August 2006
private sector providers. In addition, a large scale quantitative survey of employers in the
sector was also conducted to provide additional evidence of the level of training and
perceptions of the quality of training available to the sector.
6.3 Incidence of Training
Using data from employer surveys and labour force surveys in England, it is possible to build
a picture of the level of training carried out within the workplace. This data can be used as an
indication of whether employers in the automotive sector have a higher or lower propensity to
train than employers in the economy as a whole.
In England, there is a gap of almost 10% between the percentage of establishments who had
funded or arranged training for employees in the last twelve months in the Automotive Skills
footprint compared to the economy as a whole. However, the difference between the average
number of training days per automotive skills sector employee in the last 12 months and the
national average was not as large. Employees in the automotive sector benefited from an
average of eight days of training, compared to nine days for the whole economy. It is also
worth noting that the average training spend per employee over the last twelve months was
significantly higher for establishments in the Automotive Skills footprint, at £241.22, compared
to £185.19 for the economy as a whole.
Figure 63.
Level of training provided by automotive sector employers in England 2005
Incidence of training
Proportion of establishments funded or arranged training for
employees in the last 12 months
Proportion of establishments with less than 50 employees providing
training in the last 12 months
Average number of training days per employee in last 12 months
Average training spend (£) per employee in last 12 months
Average proportion of staff trained in last 12 months
Automotive
Skills
55.8%
Whole
Economy
64.8%
54.5%
63.3%
8.1
£241.22
65.2%
9.0
£185.19
80.8%
Source: National Employers Skills Survey
Note: The Automotive Skills Industrial definition is SIC 50.1 to 50.5 and 71.1.
These figures closely fit the results of the quantitative survey carried out for this report; for
example, it found that 54.0% of employers in the retail automotive sector in the UK had
funded or arranged training or development for staff in the past 12 months.
6.3.1
Characteristics of employees who received training
Further analysis of the Labour Force Survey for the United Kingdom provides a more detailed
explanation of the differences in the level of training received. From examining the proportion
of employees who had received training by age, it can be seen that while the 16 to 24 age
group was slightly more likely to have received training in the automotive sector than the
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 82 of 197
August 2006
economy as a whole, for the other age groups the percentages is considerably lower,
explaining the overall lower average for the sector.
In terms of gender, while males are less likely to have received training in the automotive
sector than the economy as a whole, the difference is more significant for females at 17%.
Due to sample sizes, it has not been possible to capture data for non-white employees or for
some of the occupational categories. Where this data is available, it is only in Sales and
Customer Service occupations that employees in the automotive sector were more likely to
have received training than employees in the economy as a whole, however the difference
was only 1%.
Figure 64.
Age
Ethnicity
Gender
Occupation
Characteristics of employees who received training in the last 13 weeks
Coverage of Training (Last 13 Weeks), 4 quarter average: (2004Q3 to 2005Q2)
Automotive
Whole Economy
Skills
16-24
36%
34%
25-44
18%
30%
45+
13%
24%
White
19%
28%
Non-White
*
29%
Male
20%
25%
Female
15%
32%
Managers and Senior Officials
18%
27%
Professional occupations
*
44%
Associate Professional and Technical
*
40%
Administrative and Secretarial
18%
25%
Skilled Trades Occupations
22%
17%
Personal Service Occupations
*
40%
Sales and Customer Service Occupations
25%
24%
Process, Plant and Machine Operatives
*
14%
Elementary Occupations
*
16%
Coverage: UK
Source: Labour Force Survey, SSDA Matrix
Note: The Automotive Skills Industrial definition is SIC 50.1 to 50.5 and 71.1.
6.4 Funding the Provision of Training
According to the interviews conducted as part of the primary research for Stage 2, the
majority of employers had paid for training themselves. Where external funding was provided
to companies, it usually contributed up to 50% of the training costs. The amount and type of
funding or payment required for training was dependant on the type of course being
undertaken; for example, Government funding paid for approximately 50% of apprenticeship
training. Apprenticeship funding was the type most commonly received by employers,
although they had to pay the apprentices’ wages whilst being trained.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 83 of 197
August 2006
“If we need training we pay for it ourselves. Apprenticeships obviously carry a degree of
funding and we currently have around 22 apprentices.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
There was no common consensus between employers when considering who should pay for
training. The answers were split three ways, with people generally thinking that either the
employer should be responsible for training costs, public agencies should contribute more, or
a combination of both. Those who thought employers should pay usually gave the reason
that they were ones who benefited from having a well trained employee. Again, it was
acknowledged that there was apprentice funding available, but that it was unfair that it only
applied to employees under 25 and therefore in some cases people over that age were not
able to access these courses.
“If it’s looked upon as part of their education in terms of getting a qualification then maybe
there should be funding similar to that available for universities courses or other qualifications.
Essentially it’s employers that are benefiting from the training in the long term and I don’t see
any difficulty with them paying for it.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“If there’s an area where I think it would be helpful it is if there was some funding for over 25s.
It seems to me from what knowledge I have that pretty much all of the funding available for
development is targeted at 16 to 25 year olds which is great and I understand why that would
be the case, but the bulk of our employees would be typically over 25 and fall out of the
funding criteria.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Providers of training and education reported that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) were
the primary funders of automotive training in England. In addition to this, some providers
stated that employers made a contribution to training such as part-time courses and training
designed to up-skill members of their workforce with specific qualifications. It was also stated
that employers had to pay for any adult training that occurred, although one provider
suggested that this was heavily subsidised by the LSC, with employers only contributing up to
30% of the real cost of training.
“Generally speaking the great bulk of training is paid for by the public sector. They’ll do that in
a number of ways; 16 to 19 year olds, full time, part time courses or apprenticeships from the
LSC are all paid for. If it’s for adults generally speaking they’ll pay a fee, but it’s also very
heavily subsidised by the LSC. At this moment in time the fee is 29% of the real cost.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Using the quantitative survey, it is possible to quantify the overall prevalence of some of these
views within the retail automotive sector. The majority of employers in England thought that
they should receive some support with training costs, although 26.2% were of the opinion that
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 84 of 197
August 2006
they should pay 100% of training costs without support. There was a consensus that
employers should make some contribution to the cost of training by 75.0% of respondents.
However, while there was clearly a belief that employers should be supported financially in
some form, they were reluctant to rely solely on state funding; just 6.0% of employers in
England believed that public funding bodies should cover more than 50% of their training
costs. Furthermore, there was clear and strong opposition to payment by employees for their
own training across England, with 90.5% opposed to any trainee contribution at all.
An overwhelming number of training providers were also of the opinion that it should be the
employer who should be paying to train their own staff, especially where they benefit directly
from training in terms of increased productivity and profit; however, stakeholder experience
suggests that lack of public funding is a more important issue for providers. Providers did
acknowledge that there was a gap in the funding provided by the Government in terms of
providing financial support for people over the age of 19 who wished to move into the sector
and required re-training.
“Obviously the Government through the LSC is saying that they are sponsoring the full time
students, but what about those over 19? Funding doesn’t cater for someone in their 30’s who
wants a career change in the middle of their lives. I think for people who are employed
obviously you’ve got to expect a contribution from the employer and or the employee. What
percentage of that should be full cost to them, that’s difficult to say.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“The up skilling should be from industry, public money should not pay for companies to make
more money. We have said in the past, that if you are paying for something you tend to stick
with it, if you get it free you tend to waver.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.4.1
Indirect and direct costs of training
Apart from the actual costs of sending an employee away to be trained (travel, overnight stay,
course costs etc.), the main indirect cost of training cited by respondents was the loss of
productivity, which had an immediate impact on profitability. This could be particularly
significant where margins were tight, as they often are in the sector. In particular, employers
recognised how training impacted upon the rest of the workforce not only in terms of
employees having to provide cover, but in terms of reduced productivity and profitability,
especially if they were paying for training as well as paying wages.
“The actual cost of the course is only one thing and then you are taking the person away
from the business for a substantial period of time. This puts a burden on others, maybe
working longer hours.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 85 of 197
August 2006
“Direct costs include travel – getting everyone together. We were looking at running training
for employees from all of our distribution centres but it was expensive. The cost of a 3 year
programme was £40-60K.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In the quantitative survey, employers emphasised the indirect costs of training over the direct.
The majority of responses from employers in England who had not provided training for staff
(for reasons other than satisfaction with their existing skills base, cited by 76.0% of those who
had not provided training), indicated that time pressure on employees requiring training
(6.0%), or on employees who could provide internal training (4.0%), were more significant
factors than the direct financial cost, such as fees and expenses (2.6%).
6.4.2
Increased costs of training
The majority of employers thought the cost of training to their organisation was increasing,
mainly because of demand and the pace the industry was moving at.
However, some
employers felt the cost had remained constant over recent years and because of this, they felt
they were getting good value for money. No employers believed the cost of training had
decreased.
“The cost of training is increasing. It is the pace the industry is moving at. Body construction
on vehicles is moving at a real pace and we have to keep abreast of the techniques.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Looking overall the cost of training is staying the same, I feel it is good value for money.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In general employers felt they were not able to meet all of their training needs. The main
reason given for this was lack of funding. The employers that did feel they could meet all their
needs, had flexible or sufficient budgets and they felt that not being able to find suitable
provision was more of an issue. Despite that, there was an opinion that a larger budget for
training would not have a significant impact on the amount of training provided, as there was
the issue of not being able to release a large number of employees for training at the same
time due to the loss in productivity.
“We only have so much money so you have to prioritise what is needed immediately and
what we are prepared to invest in.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 86 of 197
August 2006
“There is always something else you can do, but if someone gave me twice as much money
to spend I probably wouldn’t spend it because the other side of the equation operationally is
how many people can I afford to take away from a centre on a daily basis before it affects the
organisation.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
The issue about whether employers are able to, or should fund employee training, was put
into context in the focus groups with employers who stated that the increasing financial
constraints of operating businesses in the motor trade meant that there was a limit to what
training could be supported. Profit margins were reported as being significantly lower than in
the past for a number of reasons, including the increased service intervals for customers who
had bought new cars, resulting in less work for garages. In addition, it was felt that as
technology had moved on so quickly, the cost of updating equipment was also a constraint on
the business and this had to be the priority in terms of funding training. 67
6.4.3
Availability of external funding
The vast majority of training providers felt that the current level of external funding was not
sufficient to meet the needs of the sector for a number of reasons, including not being able to
keep up with the pace of technology and the skills gaps of newly qualified people who often
required significant induction. It was also commented that there was a severe lack of funding
for over 19’s and this was in need of being addressed.
“What they never seem to take into account is that most people that come in, for example to
do service and repair on cars, they are expecting us to work with cars little over 3 years old,
but who’s paying for all of that? There is no funding for that.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“No, I don’t think there is sufficient funding and I think it’s for these modern technologies,
electronic based etc, where there is a lack of training.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
The general consensus amongst training providers was that the characteristics of external
funding did make the provision of certain types of automotive training commercially unviable.
This was mainly due to the fact there was a lack of flexibility with the external funding which
consequently made it difficult to invest the finance in areas that would benefit.
67
CI Research SSA Pre-Work Regional Focus Groups May-June 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 87 of 197
August 2006
“I think it’s more difficult to deliver day release programmes. I think if you are a small provider
it’s very difficult to make it viable. If you are a larger provider like us, I wouldn’t say it’s easy,
but you have the economies of scale, but you need to be delivering achievement rates
significantly above the national average in order to make it viable.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“The amount of investment required, particularly on body and paint work, is very high. We
have a £4.5 million facility here and we are still missing some things.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Well, I think once you get into the team leading and supervisory level 4 qualifications then I
would say most of these courses are not viable.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Sometimes there’s too many links in the chain. Funding isn’t direct, for example as a college
I might be commissioned to do a technical certificate for a group of young people. The
delivery of that technical certificate in terms of the workshop practice that they do, the
resources that they use, the administration from beginning to end, that is all entirely within the
college, but I know that colleges only get 90% of the available funding. The training provider
keeps back 10% and in some cases I’ve heard of 20%, but on what basis?”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Amongst the training providers there was a prediction that in five years time many publicly
funded centres of excellence would have to close down as funding was further reduced.
There was felt to be some evidence to suggest that this was already beginning to occur. This
was felt to be a negative move amongst training providers as there was the perception that
they would potentially lose the network of good practice, sharing ideas and the ability to pool
resources.
6.4.4
68
Drivers of external automotive funding
Training providers felt that the Government was a strong driver for external funding of
automotive training with their policies, targets and budgets being a large influence. In addition
to Government policy, skills shortages were also commonly thought to be a strong driver as
there was a genuine need to raise skills throughout the United Kingdom.
“Skills shortages drive funding - if there were no skills shortages there would be no
Government funding.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
68
Automotive Skills CoVE Meeting Quality Improvement Group November 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 88 of 197
August 2006
“It is a case of raising skills – there is a genuine need to raise skill levels regardless of the
sector. Many young people change careers having been trained up and this does not help the
situation - apprenticeships will help to bridge that gap.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Government budgets and availability of funding; the whole thing is about money and politics.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.4.5
Improving the model of public funding of provision
It was widely agreed that several changes needed to be made to the current model of public
funding in order to make improvements to automotive training. Training providers believed
the model needed to be made more flexible, for instance extending funding to include more
Level 1 courses and adult training instead of focusing primarily on 16 to 18 year old training.
In addition, it was thought that automotive training documentation needed to be simplified and
this could reduce administration, as providers reported that there were frequently several
audits being conducted simultaneously that were measuring the same things.
“I do think we need to think about the adults, there is too much emphasis put on 16 to 18, but
as regards to adults, there is a big up skilling need and I know it’s got to come from industry
but I still think we need adult apprentices.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Well, I suppose there should be more flexibility built in and if someone wants to go on and
do their team training there should be provisions made for them if they have an aptitude for it.
As well as that we need to address the Level 1 training needs people, but that is something
that the Sector Skills Council and the funding bodies will have to look at it to make sure
there’s a wide enough range of courses to interest people, and that it is funded and the
timeframe for people to complete the qualification is appropriate.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
In addition to public funding of provision, it was also noted that training providers should be
proactive in sourcing additional funding directly from employers themselves, offering courses
which have demonstrable benefits which could persuade employers to pay a higher
proportion of the cost of provision.
6.5 Drivers of Training
6.5.1
Internal drivers of training
Views gathered from the employer interviews suggested that the internal drivers of training
concerned what was best for the customer and what was best for the business. In both cases,
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 89 of 197
August 2006
providing what was best for the customer was seen as the crucial characteristic of a
successful company.
Improving customer service was the most common internal drivers since if the customer went
away satisfied there was an increased chance of repeat business. Closely linked to customer
service were the company’s own standards; it was felt that training was necessary to attract
new recruits and to keep existing workers up to date in order to move the business forward.
The simple equation was, improve the skills of sales staff and the company will become more
profitable.
The quantitative survey also indicated that the main drivers behind training spend in England
were the need to keep up with technological developments and the belief that it would
improve performance and profitability (48.8% and 41.3% respectively). Improving customer
service was also an important driver in its own right, although clearly closely linked to the
previous two; 33.8% felt that this was important in their decision to provide training.
“Training is driven internally so that we can offer services to customers that help us stand out.
There is a strong emphasis on customer service. It is in our interest to ensure that customers
get the best out of our staff. Our staff need to know how to represent our brand to their
customers.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
There was a consensus that the industry had been slow to react to the needs of customers in
terms of communication and customer service levels. There was felt to be a need to invest
more heavily in improving customer service in order for the greatest returns on investment.
69
Staff retention was also seen as one of the drivers of training; if an employee was receiving
training then it would help improve job satisfaction as they could see a distinct career path
and progression. It was also felt that a happy and competent worker would prove to be more
productive, which would result in profits for the business.
“If you train people then they are happy doing their job. They are going to earn the company
more money, so everybody prospers.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
6.5.2
External drivers of training
In terms of legislation being an external driver for training, it was felt that this mainly affected
the Health and Safety elements of training, although it was also acknowledged that it had
some influence on apprenticeship numbers, motor vehicle laws and environmental issues.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 90 of 197
August 2006
There was a view that legislation was a key driver of technology progression which in turn
affected training needs. However, in many instances it was felt that legislation had no
particular impact on training – it was evident that it was more of a driver of training in
manufacture, repair and technology than in sales, dealerships or suppliers. This may be
because of a lack of knowledge of consumer law and other legislation among smaller
businesses.
“Legislation drives what development we do with people managers within the business,
certainly in terms of health and safety and environmental issues.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Legislation drives product change. Product change requires new technology which needs
new training. An example of this would be the Euro 4 Emissions Standard.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In terms of the external and internal drivers for training, it was acknowledged by the
employers that when training had been enforced by manufacturers and had not been seen to
be part of the overall programme of business, this resulted in the worst form of training which
had the least benefit to the business. On the other hand, where line managers had spent the
time identifying training needs and implemented learning outcomes on return to work, this
was identified as the most successful form of training. 70
6.5.3
Occupational drivers of training
Management occupations were seen as a high priority group for training by employers. In
some cases they were not regarded as being as high a priority as technical staff, but
employers widely recognised that management training and leadership were crucial for a
successful business. This was the case regardless of business size as smaller businesses felt
that management would be increasingly important as the business grew and larger
companies felt that good management training aided staff retention. One particular company
felt that this type of training had been “placed on the back burner” over recent years, which
suggested that when funding was short, this type of training may be one that is forfeited.
“Often staff turnover occurs because of inadequate management of staff as mechanics are
typically fickle. I think it is important that managers know how to motivate and lead the team.
It’s quite a small environment and people spend quite a lot of time at work.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
69
Employer Focus Group November Edinburgh
70
Automotive Skills Focus Group November Edinburgh
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 91 of 197
August 2006
Employers also identified a lack of management competence in every area of the business
and highlighted the adverse consequences of this lack of skills, including a lack of
understanding of recruitment processes and a lack of understanding about appraisal
processes, meaning staff were not properly rewarded or recognised for their work. 71
“Staff that are committed and are doing the job properly are not rewarded or recognised as
the appraisal system is not understood. This has a knock on effect on the individual and their
progression.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Like management training, training technical staff was a high priority among all employers.
They felt that this was due to the technical nature of the sector and affected not only new
staff, but, due to the fast moving pace of vehicle technology, affected experienced staff also.
As could be expected, repair, MOT, manufacture and part suppliers felt that this was a higher
priority than dealerships and sales franchises. Not only was technical training a way of
keeping up to date with new technology in manufacturing, it was felt that it improved customer
service in the repair and MOT business due to improved speed, efficiency and quality of work.
“Vehicle technology is going at an alarming rate at the moment. It’s important to keep on top.
We send people on manufacturers training and they disseminate it through the group.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Technical training is a priority especially now with an increase in the complexity of vehicles
we’re looking at and dealing with everyday. So that’s very important.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
General skills training (which encompasses a range of competencies such as team working
and communication skills) was also something that was done regularly by the majority of
employers. It was not however, seen as a ‘priority’ over other types, such as technical
training, but was considered as very important nonetheless. Again, this was related to
customer service and communication. Leadership, team building and motivation were also
general types of training that were mentioned as important. These were not types of training
that were seen as more important by any particular type of business (customer
communication was seen as important in a workshop as much as a showroom) although it
was not really associated with management.
“General skills training is something that is ongoing all the time internally. In addition, some
customer training was bought in to focus people on the needs of the customer.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
71
Automotive Skills Regional Employer Events
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 92 of 197
August 2006
“General skills training comes under other training schemes. For example, the tyre training
module is not just about how to fit / repair tyres, to diagnose faults with them. It goes a step
further in how to explain these problems to someone who doesn’t have technical
competency.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Basic skills were seen as a priority only amongst those employers who employed apprentices,
as basic literacy and numeracy was seen as an increasing problem among young people and
in lower level jobs.
“We don’t undertake basic skills training for the technicians as they are mature people, but
we do have a bespoke apprentice program, this includes key and basic skills.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Basic skills training is targeted at lower level occupations, really.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Employers were genuinely concerned that they had to train young employees in skills which
they felt should have been delivered by schools. It was also suggested that many of the job
applications from potential recruits had been written by parents reflecting the level of young
people with literacy problems. 72
6.5.4
Profitability as a driver of training
There were a number of methods used in determining which skills were most critical in
delivering profitability. It was felt that it was a difficult question to answer as, in sales in
particular, the whole process was equally important. Mystery shopping, site visits and
accounts checking were all part of the process of identifying skills gaps within the workforce,
as were customer satisfaction surveys and new staff basic skills inventories. The information
gathered from such studies was used in some cases to build a framework with which to base
the business around in the future. It was felt that to some degree, determining which types of
training were a priority was ignored; quick win training, such as sales techniques would
sometimes be undertaken and although it could provide a temporary fix, underlying skills
shortages in management might remain. Such training needs were perceived as harder to
quantify in terms of profitability and therefore may be left.
Differentiating between non-essential and essential competencies was not actively done by
the majority of employers; however, those that did mentioned specific techniques which could
be shared as best practice across the industry. Employers mentioned ‘core’ competencies to
72
CI Research SSA Pre Work Regional Focus Group May – June 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 93 of 197
August 2006
enable staff to deliver the right kind of service. As staff became more experienced or rose
through the ranks, then the number of competencies would increase. One large business in
particular mentioned a ‘pyramid’ – as the employee climbed higher in the pyramid the level of
competencies would increase (for example, workshop / site manager would need financial
competency that wasn’t needed at supervisory level).
Overall, there was a perception that training did have benefits. The quantitative survey
showed that just under two thirds (65.0%) of retail automotive sector companies in England
felt that there was a strong link between training and business performance, while only 7.5%
felt there was no link at all.
6.6 Assessing the Demand for Training
6.6.1
Employees most likely to receive training
Employers felt that the groups most likely to receive training within their organisations
depended heavily on the type of business they were. Workshops and manufacturers were
more likely to provide technical training whereas dealerships were more likely to provide sales
training. Sales training was also currently seen as a priority because of the FSA financial
award which has become a legal requirement for all salesmen. The general consensus was
that the business would provide whatever would be most likely to improve site performance.
This was carried through into the quantitative survey; since the majority of the businesses
focused on technical services of one type or another, it is perhaps not surprising that 50.0% of
those questioned in England provided more than 80% of their training for employees in
workshop occupations. For small businesses (with less than 10 employees) in the UK as a
whole, this figure rose to more than three quarters of the total.
What is perhaps more significant is that while the qualitative survey indicated a widespread
awareness of the need for non-technical training among leading figures and businesses,
75.0% of all businesses in England questioned in the quantitative survey provided no sales
training, 66.7% provided no administrative training, and 61.9% provided no management
training. As might be expected, these figures were again considerably higher for small
companies with less than 10 employees. For example, nearly nine out of ten (89.6%) of these
small companies across the UK provided no sales training.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 94 of 197
August 2006
“Sales occupations get the most training at the minute. They need the FSA which is a
financial award, and as it’s a legal requirement to sell cars, it has been a priority.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Technicians receive most training however getting people on soft skills courses is difficult.
Technicians recognise they have to have the skills and it is worth investing in their skills to
increase productivity in the workshop.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In terms of which employees were most likely to benefit from training, employers identified
that there could be resistance to training amongst some of their employees, particularly the
older employees. In addition, older employees had on occasions felt resentment towards
younger employees participating in training for fear that they may ‘overtake’ other more
experienced staff. Employees suggested that it was important therefore that training had a
specific purpose and training days could potentially be built into contracts of employment to
highlight its importance. 73
6.6.2
Determining the type of training to be delivered
The person responsible for determining the training action to be taken differed depending on
the size of the company. Within smaller, one site companies it could be the owner, whereas in
mid to large sized companies it was generally down to the branch, site or line manager. If a
company had a training or human resources department it was felt that they worked in
conjunction with site managers and company directors to determine what action to take. In
the main, it was felt that companies did not really rely on one person but on good
communication throughout the chain of command.
“It could be at the sales director or after sales director level, or if a car manufacturer has its
own training department it may be someone who fronts the training department.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“That will vary according to the individual’s position. It splits down into time at the sharp end,
and then we’ve got the call centre and all the minority departments. The head of each
department decides where they want the effort to go.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In some cases it was mentioned that suppliers determined levels of training through the
provision of product specific training. From a sales and management point of view this was
minimal but was quite a large element in technical training. In some cases the company
73
Automotive Skills Focus Group November Edinburgh
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 95 of 197
August 2006
worked with the supplier to design the best training course while in others the supplier
dictated this.
6.7 training plans and Budgets
6.7.1
Formal training plans
Companies which did not have a formal training plan ranged in size, though it was
predominantly large companies who suggested that such a plan was harder to accomplish in
a large scale operation, while for small to medium sized enterprises it was seen as more
achievable. For large companies, or companies with multiple sites, it was suggested that a
company wide plan would not be feasible due to the fragmented way in which some
companies operated (head offices, franchise dealers, manufacturers etc), and that it would be
much more likely that the company would study the skills needs of each individual area or site
of the business. It was also felt that the training needs could not be predicted in companies
where unanticipated new technology could suddenly become available, and training would be
required which would then not be in the plan. That said, a number of employers mentioned
that they would be developing training plans in the near future.
The majority of companies questioned for the qualitative survey did have a company training
plan although there was a degree of variety in the way in which these were delivered. In some
cases the plan mapped out the next steps for employees and split them by occupation such
as technical, sales, after sales, management and leadership. In other cases, the plan involved
systematically analysing different elements of the business, though it was felt that this way
may lack detail and place too much emphasis on technical training rather than managerial or
administration. In contrast, only 12.9% of English employers questioned in the quantitative
survey had a training plan; this is likely to be because the qualitative survey targeted larger or
‘exemplar’ employers who were more predisposed to offer training.
“Each individual has their own development needs looked at. There is a review process with
in the company, so effectively each person has a training program from the first day at work.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“We do have a structure but it is not as detailed as I would like. It is based on the review of
skills analysis of various employees, but it is predominantly set by technical workshop floor
personnel rather than management or administration.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 96 of 197
August 2006
6.7.2
Formal training budgets
Employers involved in the depth qualitative consultation tended to have a formal training
budget. Companies felt that it enabled them to ensure that the monetary outlay and return on
investment to the business was proportionate and that they were getting value for money. The
ability to plan for the future rather than just to react to immediate needs was also seen as an
important benefit to the long term stability of the company. It was also felt that a formal budget
clarified what could and could not be accomplished during that time period. In the past it was
felt that the plug was pulled on training for financial reasons where money was suddenly not
available; however, having a training budget helped companies make these decisions more
rationally.
The sector-wide quantitative survey which included many smaller employers revealed a
different picture with only 6.9% of all respondents in England having a specific training
budget. The explanation for the disparity in results is supported by the differing results for
small, medium and large companies. Only 2.9% of companies in the UK as a whole with less
than 10 employees were likely to have a training budget, but this figure rose considerably to
25.3% for those with between 10 and 100 employees, and increased still further to 88.9% for
companies with more than 100 employees.
“I think the training should be proportional and beneficial to the business so we have to
match what we put in to what we get out. Obviously every pound spent must have an effect at
the other end for example, an increment in sales or growth in business.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“The fact I can plan for the future means it’s less reactive. I think what tends to happen
otherwise is you allocate resources to immediate needs rather than looking at what the future
needs of the business are.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
In general there was at least an element of flexibility in the budgets. It was felt that such
flexibility was necessary in that it was only possible to plan ahead to a certain extent and that
unforeseen costs could crop up over the course of the year.
A number of companies did not have a formal training budget. In one case it was felt that
training was needs driven as there were so many different levels in the company and it was
too big to be able to plan funding for training company wide effectively.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 97 of 197
August 2006
6.7.3
Individual training plans
Companies involved in the qualitative consultation which did not have training plans for
individual employees felt that it would not be feasible for the majority of their staff, with the
exception of those in management occupations. One company, which identified that the
majority of their training was technical, introduced new training blocks to bring all staff up to
date together rather than on an individual basis. Another employer in the fast-fit industry felt
that in their case, the idea of being so specific with employee training would be a poor use of
time and money as staff turnover was so high.
According to the quantitative survey 13.3% of employers in England maintained training plans
for employees. As might be expected, companies with less than 10 employees (in the UK as
a whole) were considerably less likely to have such plans (6.9%).
“Each employee would not have an individual training plan. One of the big problems we have
is that we’ll do skills analysis when the individual first comes to us and we’ll start working on
what’s been established that we need to provide training on, then the individual will leave so it
is not cost effective.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Most companies though, did have individual training plans which in the main were part of their
annual appraisal or review. Performance for the previous year was reviewed; competencies
analysed to help identify gaps and training planned accordingly. In all cases these plans were
done by site or line managers in conjunction with the employee.
“Employees have an appraisal annually, where requirements are raised; they get passed to
me and logged, it is up to the individual to get the training they need as per appraisal.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“As part of the appraisal process you would get competency analysis. Training needs would
be identified against that on an ongoing basis. There are formal annual reviews as well.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
6.8 Identifying Training Needs
There were different methods that training providers used to establish the level of demand for
automotive training, these included; examining labour market information and relevant trends
from Learning and Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies, speaking to people
within the industry, obtaining feedback from schools and even conducting their own research.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 98 of 197
August 2006
“We tend to use information from the LSC, DTI and any other labour market information that
is useful to us.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“School interviews give the first indication of future demand, then interviews from new starts
and feedback from general college marketing. Schools also get feedback from employers on
what they want and what they need so we use that as well.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
The vast majority of training providers believed that there had been an increase in demand for
automotive training in the sector, especially in areas such as work based learning, autoelectrical and general full-time training. Those training providers who believed that there had
been a decrease, or that the demand had remained stagnant, felt that this had occurred
mainly in the area of manufacturing.
“Demand is definitely increasing, especially for the auto electrical parts of the course. We
now have a new auto electrical lab with approximately 80 students enrolled on the course.
There is definitely growth in the automotive area – there are more students and more
enquiries.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Demand is beginning to emerge for ‘high-end technicians’. Vehicle re-finishing on the other
hand seems to be taking a bit of dip in terms of recruitment. We’re trying to get
apprenticeships and it’s very difficult for them. I don’t know if it is a structural issue within
those particular lines of work, but I know that the recruitment is very slow.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.9 Types of Training Courses in Demand
Training providers suggested that there were numerous deficiencies across the board in
terms of the competency categories required by the automotive sector.
Several training
providers stated that deficiencies were evident in management and leadership skills and in
basic skills, with suggestions that this was due to a lack of funding at managerial level and
attracting less academically able people into the sector with poor literacy and numeracy skills.
“There are probably deficiencies in training for management and leadership but it depends on
whether of not there is a demand for it. A lot of employers have set up their own businesses
from nothing and they tend not to look further to see the benefit that management training
would have on their company.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 99 of 197
August 2006
“Schooling is failing young people as leavers don’t have the appropriate levels of Maths,
Science and English.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
The quantitative survey gave a more detailed picture of the popularity of some methods of
identifying training needs amongst employers in England; 27.5% monitored individual
performance, 18.8% used informal staff appraisals and 16.9% used formal staff appraisals.
Less frequently used were external evaluations and/or market research, which together were
used by only 11.3% of employers, or customer satisfaction surveys, used by 10.6%. 26.9%
used other methods not initially suggested by the survey. In the UK as a whole, of the
companies giving an answer in this category, 40% (11.8% of the total) applied training based
primarily on the introduction of new products and technologies. In total, 76.2% of employers in
England were able to describe their strategy to identify training needs, indicating widespread
awareness of the potential need for training.
Some employers felt it was confusing as to who was responsible for providing training and
also reported feelings of frustration in trying to locate courses. There was felt to be a need for
one central information point and a recognisable approval system for training establishments
in order for employers to make an informed choice when choosing a training provider.
74
“Who is responsible for training and education? Too many organisations are attempting to
provide the same but different information.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“It takes far too long to find training courses. There is no central information available and no
recognisable approval system.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Training should be approved at national level for example, course content and course
providers kite marked with an agreement from the LSC as to the funding level.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
6.9.1
Levels of training in demand
Overall, training providers believed that automotive employers tended to look for training that
was primarily cost effective and caused as little disruption as possible to their business as
they did not want to lose an employee for a long period of time from the business. In terms of
74
Automotive Skills Regional Employer Event
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 100 of 197
August 2006
the levels of training demanded, the consensus was that Level 3 was the most frequently
required.
“I think they are looking for something that is easy to deliver, minimises bureaucracy and the
amount of time employees are out of the workplace.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“When we are talking about apprentices there are various things that employers look for, such
as having as little disruption as possible. They want training that is immediately going to
impact on the bottom line. So, for example, in terms of business improvement techniques we
will send an engineer in and he’ll make some recommendations prior to the training course.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Demand for Level 3 provision is the norm. Auto electric and diagnostics will require Level 4
as they become more complex. In terms of day versus block release, there is evidence for
both, some prefer block, some prefer day.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Providers within Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs), a network of colleges offering
specialist training and education for individual vocational sectors in England, felt that there
was a significant demand from employers for apprentices and the apprenticeship programme.
Apprenticeships had worked successfully when partnerships and networking had taken place
to support the delivery, as had been developed amongst the London based organisations on
a managed system of increased competition. 75
Most training providers felt the qualifications that were available met the needs of the
automotive sector. However, there was general agreement that there was a need for
qualifications to be more flexible, specifically in terms of developing pre-16 qualifications.
There was a perception that the number of technical skills courses currently available was
adequate and that additional training provision would be more beneficial in other areas.
However, it was noted that due to the fast moving nature of the technological side of the
sector, there was a need to update qualifications at a quicker rate than was currently possible
so they could in turn update the content of their courses. The CoVEs agreed that many
aspects of the current syllabus had become obsolete and that more courses in customer
services, sales and management were needed.
75
Automotive Skills CoVE Meeting November 2005
76
Automotive Skills CoVE Meeting November 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
76
Page 101 of 197
August 2006
“To be honest qualifications can not keep up with the technology. We should have a system
where qualifications can be adapted and changed quicker, to match advances in industrial
developments.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“There needs to be more courses for pre-16 year olds. These are a mile away from where
they need to be. I’d suggest at 14 kids have a less of a view of what they want to do than
when they are 16, so to put them on a specific course at this age is wrong. They should be
offered a more holistic view of the industry, including everything. A more generic view would
give them more options. I think this should be integrated into diplomas too.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“I think technical qualifications are probably well supported and are fairly adequate for the
industry. I think there is a gap in the non-technical side to be honest with you. For example,
customer facing, sales consultants, service advisors and managers. I don’t think there is a
thirst for academic type qualifications in these areas.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.10 Recruitment and Retention of Learners
The vast majority of training providers actively and directly promoted the automotive sector
and the training that they offered to pre-16’s in schools. Only one training provider indirectly
promoted their courses to schools through sending literature and other information to further
education colleges who had direct links with schools. Common methods of direct promotion
included leaflets, exhibitions, taster days, open days, news letters and visiting schools.
“I go out and visit schools and talk to interested students and their parents and teachers.
Obviously for the young apprenticeship scheme that’s vital because we have to get the right
calibre of students from age 14 to come in to college. You can’t beat the face-to-face
engagement, because you can answer any questions immediately.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“We have open evenings here during the year, we run tours of the site to show what we do,
we have taster days. We visit the schools but they are reluctant as they think we will poach
their sixth formers. We also go to Connexions and careers evenings.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“We have a recruitment team, and we market on behalf of the manufacturers in our cluster as
we recruit the learners from school. As part of that we spend about £1.5m a year on
recruitment services, and clearly part of that is going to schools, job fairs, all of those sorts of
things, clearly with a view to recruiting learners but there is a large element within that of
promoting the industry as well as promoting our business.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 102 of 197
August 2006
It was widely believed that automotive training providers faced numerous difficulties when
promoting the sector to young people. The most common problem faced was the
misconception of the lack of career opportunities in the sector by both parents and teachers,
as the majority still held the stereotype that mechanics were ‘grease monkeys’. It was also
agreed that some schools treated automotive training as a ‘dumping ground’ for the less
academically able learners. In addition, it was suggested that some head-teachers feared
that their sixth form students would be attracted into vocational professions and were
therefore reluctant to suggest these careers to them.
Raising awareness of the sector in schools was seen by the providers as a necessity as the
image portrayed by teachers and parents was seen as being very negative. In particular it
was thought teachers and parents actively encouraged the A-Level and university route and
regarded the Apprenticeship route as second rate.
77
“I think the big problem is that they’re not aware of the range of opportunities within the
vocational areas. I still think schools are very poor in getting over to the kids what actually
can be done within a certain set of skills within the sector.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“For parents, their first impression when you talk about automotive is working in some oily,
dirty back street garage. I do think there’s a poor image yes. It is changing but slowly.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Schools think we are out to poach their sixth formers.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Although numerous training providers did promote training to adults, several problems were
highlighted including great difficulty in delivering relevant qualifications in a timeframe which
was suitable for adult learners. There was also a difficulty in encouraging employers and
adults to participate in training due to the lack of funding in this area.
“We do market our courses to adults but it’s difficult now with the funding. A lot of adults don’t
want the qualification, they just want the social side, they want the practical skills for their own
requirements, even if it’s just mending their own car at home, rather than moving into a
different industry from what they’re doing now.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Although training providers stated that they did not experience many problems when
promoting to adults overall, difficulties were faced with specific groups, in particular the severe
lack of funding for over 25s. In England this is being addressed to a certain extent by the
77
Automotive Skills CoVE Meeting November 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 103 of 197
August 2006
creation of a Level 2 entitlement, which guarantees funding for training up to the equivalent of
a Level 2 NVQ, irrespective of the age of the employee requiring that training. 78 Level 3
qualifications may also attract partial funding.
“The bigger issue is the demand cycles. You may have someone who is 28 or 30 years who
says ‘I want to be a motor technician’, the demand’s there, but the funding isn’t because
funding with adult apprenticeships is still being worked through, and to a large degree is nonexistent at the moment.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
In order for employers to become aware of the training that was available, training providers
tended to send out useful information and literature, circulate newsletters, hold conferences
and continually visit employers, especially new ones entering the sector.
“We have a fairly active business development team who go out talking to as many people in
the industry as possible and aim to gauge what their needs are and to see where we can fit
the gaps that we identify.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“We market them, we have a sales and marketing department. Also we are owned by the
retail and motor industry federation so we have those links and also through Connexions
services.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.10.1 The quality of recruits
Although a few training providers did not encounter difficulties with the quality of recruits, it
was widely agreed that quality was a major issue. Training providers were of the opinion that
the school educational system was not equipping young people with the skills required, as
evidenced by the lack of basic skills, and that this was a serious issue which needed to be
addressed. Indeed, one provider stated that amongst one year group almost 50% of learners
required additional basic skills support.
“We are doing the job that the schools should be doing. Students are at the D-E GCSE level
in terms of ability and we have to quickly raise the standard to enable them to cope with the
demands of the courses on which they are enrolled.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
78
HM Government (2005) White Paper: Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/
publications/skillsgettingon/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 104 of 197
August 2006
“A high proportion of 16 year olds that come out of school require significant basic literacy and
numeracy support.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Employers also acknowledged the difficulty in recruiting new, high calibre entrants into the
sector and also found that the school educational system was at fault as they felt there had
been too much emphasis placed upon the importance of gaining IT skills, meaning school
leavers often perceived automotive qualifications as second rate to gaining IT qualifications.
Therefore the quality of the entrants starting the courses was often poor as automotive
qualifications were often perceived as the ‘last chance option’ for young people about to drop
out of education.
79
This is one possible explanation for the high numbers of Level 1
qualifications being taken by learners in the sector.
There was also felt to be a lack of understanding amongst careers advisors about the sector,
resulting in poor advice and confusion amongst school leavers about where to go to find out
information about career opportunities in the retail automotive sector. 80
“The sector is not promoted in a positive light by careers advisors who have little awareness
of career prospects in the industry and therefore do not promote it in a positive manner to
young people when they are looking to start a career path.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Young people are not briefed on the sector or the opportunities available and there is a lack
of understanding with regard to who should be approached for advice about apprenticeships.
Is it the employer, the provider, the LSC or Connexions?”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
6.10.2 Collaboration between providers
The majority of training providers surveyed collaborated with each other and with
manufacturers who were looking to access training. However, the extent of cooperation
varied, and where providers were in direct competition, the relationship was perceived to be
unstable as a result of a lack of trust from both parties. This was felt to be damaging to the
overall image of the sector, and it may prevent suitable referrals being made between
providers. Where collaboration did take place, it was often to take advantage of the specific
skills sets and/or resources of other providers.
“One area where we look for collaboration is e-learning because internally we don’t have the
technical expertise to develop or implement IT systems. We are experts in our subject matter
so we don’t seek to collaborate to develop that aspect of our provision.”
79
Automotive Skills Focus Group November Edinburgh
80
Automotive Skills Regional Employer Event
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 105 of 197
August 2006
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.10.3 Changes in sector training composition
It was widely agreed amongst training providers that there would be a reduction in the number
of providers in the next five to ten years due to the increasing competition and it was felt that
this needed to be reviewed in terms of the impact on the recruitment and retention of learners.
It was also anticipated that technological improvements would have a significant impact on
provision, with vehicle services and repairs becoming less frequent and more complex in
terms of the levels of technical expertise required. The investment in new technology required
for this was seen as a threat to the viability of some courses.
“I would expect to see a continuation of the centralisation of manufacturer training within
Europe, with provision being rationalised to a smaller number of ‘special cell’ training centres.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“As vehicles become more reliable service intervals will become less frequent. Consequently,
there will be a reduced demand for technicians trained to conduct repairs on newer vehicles.
Older vehicles will still require more frequent services but with a reduction in prices their
numbers on the road looks set to decline.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
6.11 Employer Engagement
Numerous barriers were faced by providers in trying to engage a wide range of employers.
The main difficulties surrounded a lack of employer enthusiasm to send recruits on training
programmes, their desire for training to be completed within a short space of time, and a fear
by employers that training would increase the chance of their employees being ‘poached’ by
other companies. As a result, some employers will seek to have exclusivity or dedicated
provision, placing further demands on provider resources.
“Employers are extremely territorial and protective of their staff. At one time we provided
training for DAF and MAN ERF, who had 25% and 4% of the European market respectively.
However, we had to stop offering services to the latter to retain the custom of the former.
Similarly, Porsche nearly pulled out of the training after they saw a Daewoo car in the college
garage.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 106 of 197
August 2006
6.11.1 Employer involvement in the design of training / courses
Several training providers actively sought and facilitated employer input into the design of the
automotive training courses they offered. Employers were involved in different aspects of the
process and to varying degrees, with consultation ranging from feedback on previous
experiences to focus groups establishing training needs. A small number of providers actually
tailored their courses to the specific needs of the employer. However, there were limitations
due to the rigidness of certain courses and qualifications. In addition, it tended to be only the
larger employers who had a significant influence on course design.
“DAF, Porsche, Nationwide, Royal Mail, BT, the military (etc.) all get involved and influence
the design of our courses. We welcome the advice and guidance they offer and even invite
them to teach some aspects of the training.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“We deliver a framework that is predetermined. However, wherever possible we allow
employers to select from a range of optional units to ensure that the training best meets their
needs.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“When working with a large employer it is possible to work collaboratively to design bespoke
programmes which meet all of their specific needs because of the numbers of trainees
involved.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
An alternative viewpoint on employer involvement is presented by the TUC (Trades Unions
Congress) in England. While the TUC are also in favour of training being tailored to fit the
needs of industry, they highlight that in the rush to do this, FE colleges have in some cases
become seen as purely a service to employers, with policy-makers losing sight of their local
social and cultural roles. They also express the opinion that measurements of employer
demand too often rely on assuming that the views of senior management will reflect all the
needs of industry sectors without considering the views and needs of frontline employees who
are likely to experience skills gaps more directly and will therefore know first-hand if training is
appropriate to their needs.
6.12 Use of Internal and External Training
As can be seen from the table overleaf, the quantitative survey indicated that workshop
training was by far the most frequently provided type of training by employers in the English
retail automotive sector and was most likely to be carried out in-house (79.7%) without
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 107 of 197
August 2006
external accreditation. There were no forms of training where the share of externally
accredited training exceeded 50%.
Figure 65.
Split of Internal / External training within the automotive sector in England
Was training internally or externally accredited?
Management
Sales
Workshop
Administrative
Internally
60.7%
58.8%
79.7%
59.1%
Externally
35.7%
35.3%
18.6%
40.9%
Source: Ci Research 2006 Automotive Employer Quantitative Survey
6.12.1 Use of internal training schemes
Of the companies who participated in the depth qualitative consultation, those which met all of
their training requirements internally did so in company owned centres which were staffed by
individuals with considerable knowledge and understanding of the needs of the employer. The
characteristics of the training varied, most notably in the format of delivery, which was either
in a block or day release format depending upon the geographic dispersal of branches and
the needs of the business.
“We have four regional training centres; we delivered 18,000 training days in our off site
training facilities last year and generally we have 28 people on each course, for each of these
days and we get close to an 80% turn out.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Amongst employers who met their training needs internally there was a belief, in some cases,
that traditional ‘external courses’ did not equip young people with the skills and competencies
they claimed to contain, whereas by meeting all training needs internally an organisation
could have full control over quality and outputs.
In contrast, the quantitative survey highlighted inconvenience (cited by 56.1%) and the
availability of training skills within the company (36.4%) as the major reasons for internal
provision in England.
Poor quality of external provision was only cited by 3.0% of
respondents. However, 28.8% believed that internal provision enabled them to better ensure
quality, indicating at least a lack of confidence in the quality of external provision.
6.12.2 Use of external training schemes
The companies who met all of their training requirements externally determined which
provider to use on an individual case basis; identifying the training requirements and then
selecting the provider who could best meet those needs.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 108 of 197
August 2006
The type of training providers utilised varied according to the type of training which was
required; technical training was provided by specialists (such as Robert Bosch, London),
while general skills (such as customer service and health and safety) and other specific
learning (such as law) was provided by private training providers, local Further Education
colleges, and Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVE) where available. In terms of delivery,
much of the training was delivered in the evening so that daytime operations were
not
affected.
Two primary reasons for providing training externally were identified; the first being
contractual (i.e. an obligation to send employees on manufacturers training courses) and the
second being operational, due to the belief that internal provision was distracting for the
individuals involved and other employees and that external provision assisted focus and
resulted in increased outputs.
The quantitative survey suggests that a lack of internal capability to deliver appropriate
training is a major driver of external training uptake in England (36%), as is a belief that
external trainers might be able to provide higher quality than internal provision (21%). Again,
this reflects the higher level of participation of small companies with limited training
capabilities in the quantitative survey.
“It’s better to get people offsite and away from internal distractions to help ensure that they
give their full attention to what they are being taught.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
6.12.3 Employers using a combination of internal and external provision
In the main, those employers who combined internal and external delivery of their training had
proportionately more of their training delivered internally, though some companies reported an
equal split. None of the companies using a combination of delivery methods believed they
delivered more training externally than internally.
Employers using a combination of training routes met a wide variety of their training
requirements internally, including technical and management training. Types of training which
were met by external providers included Health and Safety, ICT, ‘soft skills’, after-sales,
finance and law compliance training. Employer size appeared to have little bearing on the
types of training provided internally, with the method adopted reflecting the specific
requirements of the individual organisation.
In contrast, the size of the employer did impact on the characteristics of internal delivery, with
larger employers tending to deliver training at company owned sites. Where possible these
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 109 of 197
August 2006
were spaced evenly throughout the country to reduce the distances that employees had to
travel. In some cases internal provision was delivered in conjunction with external suppliers,
such as CoVEs, though in general the trainers were specialists from within the company.
Training was delivered via a mixture of day and block release.
“We are seeking to establish regional academies to reflect the geographic dispersal of the
company, whilst ensuring that all employees receive the same level of training.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Small to medium sized companies tended to do the vast majority of their internal training
onsite, mainly in the workshop, although there were instances of companies using online and
video tools to supplement the learning process.
Amongst the employers consulted, workshop training was delivered by management or
experienced staff and also included mentoring. It was noted that smaller employers often
struggled to allocate dedicated members of staff to manage training activity and as such,
responsibility was frequently devolved to a number of individuals within these organisations.
“It is a mixture really, training could be delivered on the workshop floor, but it could also be
done via the computer with on-line training or even through watching a video.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Two primary factors were identified which influenced the employer decision to deliver training
internally, the first being cost. Whilst internal delivery was by no means cheap, it was found to
be less expensive than external provision, with additional savings being made on indirect
costs (i.e. travel, overnight accommodation etc.). The second reason was the ability to tailor
the training to the exact needs of the business. Employers were of the opinion that some
types of training required an in-depth knowledge of the business and therefore could not be
undertaken externally.
“External training can be very expensive. In addition to the cost of training itself you have to
meet the additional costs of travel, subsistence, accommodation and in some cases cover.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Some training requires specific knowledge of the business. It would be very difficult to get
the same results from generic training providers.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Similarly, one employer believed that technical training was something which was difficult to
deliver externally because the amount of equipment required would be cost prohibitive.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 110 of 197
August 2006
“External provision of some forms of technical training can be difficult. It would be expensive
for providers to purchase some of the machinery and components (i.e. engines and
gearboxes), or for us to transport it to them. In contrast, other forms of training (i.e.
management training) can be done anywhere.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
External training was provided mainly for financial training (as qualified accountants were
necessary), employment law and other legalities and some technical training. There appeared
to be a difference in the types of technical training provided externally as opposed to that
delivered internally. External technical training was mainly used to update staff with specialist
and new skills which could not necessarily be offered internally. Some elements of
management training were also delivered externally.
6.12.4 External provider selection processes
A number of factors influenced which external training suppliers were chosen and, in some
instances, the decision over whether training needs were met externally at all. Employers
were of the opinion that the choice of external providers was limited. Within this, there was
apprehension in using the services of some providers, including CoVEs, because of a belief
that they did not fully understand the needs of employers.
“In our sector external provision is limited. There are not many options to choose from.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“We are trying to find an expert to offer key skills training, it isn’t proving as simple as we
expected!”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
The quantitative survey highlighted the wide variety of factors considered when sourcing
external provision. While the simple availability of appropriate courses was the most important
factor for English employers, cited by 50.0%, the next most critical factors were the quality of
the provider’s equipment and facilities (40.5%) followed by their convenient location (38.1%).
This suggests that while quality of provision is critical, convenient local availability of that
provision across the country is still important. Among the other major considerations were
cost, specialist staff provision, and the time requirements of the courses.
Industry experience was perceived as hugely important for employers, as was the need for
the provider to ensure quality, offer flexibility in terms of delivery and have the capacity to
meet demand when required. There was an impression that external suppliers were inflexible
in this regard. Ironically, employers found that if a supplier did have the time to meet their
needs they were generally not of the required quality, whereas good quality providers were
booked up and were therefore unable to meet the training requirements. In certain instances
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 111 of 197
August 2006
employers had ongoing relationships with specific training providers or had an approved list of
providers to approach and this was seen as the preferred route for sourcing external training.
“We’ve had ongoing relationships with a number of organisations for many, many years so
we know the quality that they deliver and they know our business and can develop training
which enables us to improve.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Employers expressed a concern about the level of quality of the technical skills training being
taught in colleges, commenting that employees returned from these training courses at the
same competency level as prior to completing the training. Many employers felt that such
training which had been carried out by colleges was a poor substitute for on-the-job learning.
This in turn had encouraged employers to carry out training in house. However, in response
to this, it had been noted by some employers that training providers were responding to such
demands and were trying to deliver training in new facilities with an employer focused
approach. 81
“The learning is no replacement for experience and although staff had been accredited as
master technicians they were hopeless in the workplace.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Overall, it was apparent that employers adopted a value for money approach, assessing the
cost of training against anticipated benefits and then, subsequently, the value and cost of
internal versus external provision.
“We would look at the skill requirement and weigh up the pros and cons of each training
provider, both in terms of the overall product and cost. We also take into consideration
whether the same outcome could be achieved in-house.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
There was a perception that in some cases complimentary training was offered initially to gain
business but that nothing materialised in terms of delivery. It was felt that the underlying
reason for this was cost, as offering the training was no longer cost effective for the suppliers.
An example given was exhaust manufacturers where training was previously complimentary
but now came at an additional cost.
The main appeal of external providers was their expertise (which in many cases, in both large
and small companies, was felt not to be available in-house) and the broad spectrum of
knowledge they possessed regarding training developments within the sector. The main
81
CI Research SSA Pre Work Regional Focus Groups May-June 2005
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 112 of 197
August 2006
factors that training providers felt strongly influenced employers when determining what
training to use were cost, reputation, quality and facilities.
“The site we operate from is what makes us attractive to employers, as does our extensive
library and dedicated learning support team. The quality of service is key.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 113 of 197
August 2006
7 Quality of Provision
7.1 Key Messages and Issues
ƒ
In general, colleges and training providers in England could be said to have performed well; no
inspectorates highlighted severe problems across the sector.
ƒ
Figures are not comparable between nations due to differing assessment and reporting
techniques.
ƒ
The ALI reports highlighted internal Quality Assurance as a weak point.
ƒ
Ofsted reports showed significantly lower levels of overall service quality in FE colleges in the
South East and London, when compared to the North West, North East and East Midlands.
ƒ
Ofsted reports documented a pass rate of 78.8% and a retention rate of 76.9% in FE colleges
for the most frequently studied course, Vehicle Maintenance/Repair.
ƒ
The effects of training were monitored by 59.8% of English retail automotive sector employers
offering training to their employees.
ƒ
Employers used a wide variety of methods to assess the effectiveness of training.
ƒ
91.9% of English employers who provided training for their employees were satisfied with its
impact on the business. Only 4.1% considered that it had no impact on their overall business
productivity.
ƒ
Most providers conducted self-assessments in addition to the official inspections,
concentrating particularly on quality, value for money and achievement rates. There was
disagreement on what level targets for learner achievement and retention should be set at.
7.2 Introduction
The following section offers an assessment of the quality of training provision in England,
drawing on data from assessments undertaken by Ofsted and ALI.
This data is supported by primary evidence from the depth qualitative consultations with
employers and training providers and from the large scale quantitative survey with employers.
7.3 Ofsted and Adult Learning Inspection (ALI) Reports
In England inspection reports from Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) have
been used to provide an assessment of the quality of training provision for the retail
automotive sector. It is important to note that automotive provision is often contained within
engineering departments and therefore the grade awarded will be for provision as a whole.
Where more detailed data is available it has been used.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 114 of 197
August 2006
7.3.1
Ofsted Inspection Reports
Using data from the available inspection reports of providers of automotive courses in
England supplied by the LSC, the figure below illustrates the average retention and pass
rates by subject area, where it is apparent that the total average retention was 76.1% and the
total average pass rate was 76.5%.
Examining the average retention rates in more detail, it is evident that courses in Motorcycle
Maintenance/Repair
had
the
highest
rate
with
81.5%,
followed
by
Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair/Servicing (76.9%), and Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair (76.3%). In
terms of pass rates it was evident that Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair courses had the
highest pass rate with 84.7%, followed by Vehicle Maintenance/Repair (78.8%) and Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair/Servicing (78.1%).
Figure 66.
Average retention rates and pass rates by subject area
Subject Area
Motorcycle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Electrical/electronic Systems
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair /
Servicing
Vehicle Wheel and Tyre Fitting
Total Average of Retention %
Average Retention %
81.5%
76.3%
75.2%
74.5%
76.9%
Average Pass Rate %
84.7%
77.8%
70.6%
78.8%
78.1%
74.3%
76.1%
54.0%
76.5%
Source: Ofsted Inspection Reports
Just under half of the Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments were awarded a Satisfactory
Grade (48.1%), while only 2.3% of providers were awarded an Outstanding Grade. 12.4% of
providers (16) were graded as having Unsatisfactory Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments.
The average grade in England was 2.7, between satisfactory and good.
Figure 67.
Overall inspection grade for Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments
Overall Grade
1
2
3
4
Grand Total
Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Number of Providers
3
48
62
16
129
Percentage
2.3%
37.2%
48.1%
12.4%
100.0%
Source: Ofsted Inspection Reports
There were significant regional differences in performance. FE college Engineering/Motor
Vehicle departments in the North West, North East and East Midlands had an average rating
of 2.3, meaning that departments in these areas were slightly more likely to be rated Good
than Satisfactory. However, in the South East and London performance was significantly
worse; here the average ratings were 3.1 and 3.0 respectively, with eight departments rated
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 115 of 197
August 2006
as unsatisfactory outweighing the five rated as good. Overall, a trend can be seen of higher
quality provision in the northern regions of England than in the southern regions.
Figure 68.
Overall inspection grade for Engineering/Motor Vehicle Departments in each region
Region
East Midlands
East of England
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and the
Humber
Total (England
Base Size
11
15
11
6
21
21
13
20
11
1
Outstanding
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
129
3
Grade
2
Good
8
4
3
4
12
2
4
10
1
48
Average
3
Satisfactory
3
8
5
2
6
14
6
8
10
4
Unsatisfactory
0
3
3
0
1
5
2
2
0
62
16
Grade
2.3
2.9
3.0
2.3
2.3
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.9
2.7
Sources: Ofsted Inspection Reports, LSC Data for college locations
7.3.2
Adult Learning Inspection (ALI) Reports
The data below illustrates the overall inspection grade for providers of engineering,
technology and manufacturing work based learning. It is important to note that although
automotive provision is included in this category, the grades are for whole departments which
may also offer non-automotive courses.
Within a total of 305 relevant providers of work based learning courses, 42.6% (130) were
awarded an Inspection Grade of 3, and 28.2% awarded with Grade 2. Only 3.3% of providers
(10) were awarded the highest inspection grade; Grade 1. The average grade was 2.9.
Figure 69.
Overall inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing work
based learning
Inspection Grade
1
2
3
4
5
Grand Total
Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing
No. of Providers
10
86
130
72
7
305
Percentage
3.3%
28.2%
42.6%
23.6%
2.3%
100.0%
Source: ALI Inspection Reports, http://www.ali.gov.uk/Inspection/Inspection+statistics/
Examination of the detail of the inspections revealed that for the same group of training
providers, performance was on average strongest in Equal Opportunities and weakest in
Quality Assurance.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 116 of 197
August 2006
Although the difference in average grade between Leadership & Management and Equal
Opportunities appears very small, it conceals the fact that performance in Equal Opportunities
is much more consistent across the board. Only 26.9% of providers were judged at grade 4 or
lower on this issue, compared with 40.0% for Leadership and Management and 53.7% for
Quality Assurance, indicating considerable room for improvement in these areas.
Figure 70.
Detailed Inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing work based
learning
Inspection Grade
1
2
3
4
5
Grand Total
Average Grade
Leadership &
management
No.
%
5
67
111
105
17
305
1.6%
22.0%
36.4%
34.4%
5.6%
100%
Equal Opportunities
Quality Assurance
No.
%
No.
%
7
48
160
81
9
305
2.3%
15.7%
52.5%
26.6%
3.0%
100%
2
34
105
145
19
305
0.7%
11.1%
34.4%
47.5%
6.2%
100%
3.2
3.1
3.5
Source: ALI Inspection Reports, http://www.ali.gov.uk/Inspection/Inspection+statistics/
A regional analysis of the ALI data for work based learning does not reveal the same
north/south divide as found in the Ofsted Further Education college data; however, there are
some regions that perform slightly better than others. London, for example, has the lowest
level of performance in England, with establishments in the capital scoring an average of just
3.3. In contrast, establishments in the neighbouring South East region were graded on
average at 2.7, the best in the country. This, however, is not a large variation given the
relatively small base sizes, and cannot be taken to indicate any dramatic difference in the
quality of provision. It should be noted that a significant proportion of this work based learning
provision could not be attributed to any region, since it was provided via the National Office.
This included, for example, national training schemes for large multi-site companies such as
Kwik-Fit.
82
82
LSC Work Based Learning 03/04 data, Automotive Retail Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 117 of 197
August 2006
Figure 71.
Inspection grades for Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing provision in
each region
Region
East Midlands
East of England
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and
Humberside
National Office
Total (England)
24
22
18
27
58
29
32
40
33
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
2
9
8
4
9
16
9
8
9
6
Grade Awarded
3
7
7
6
13
26
17
15
19
15
4
7
7
7
5
13
1
7
8
10
5
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
Average
2.8
3.0
3.3
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
22
305
2
10
8
86
5
130
7
72
0
7
2.8
2.9
Base Size
Source: ALI Inspection Reports, http://www.ali.gov.uk/Inspection/Inspection+statistics/
7.4 Employers’ Perceptions of Quality
All employers involved in the depth qualitative survey attempted to evaluate the quality of
training and the impact it had on employees; the general rationale for this was to assess value
for money. It was recognised that training was expensive and that monitoring was necessary
in order to justify the expenditure and secure future training budgets.
However, when looking at a wider population of employers via the quantitative survey a
different picture emerged; 40.2% of those employers who provided training in England did not
formally assess the impact of that training on employees.
The establishments selected for in-depth qualitative consultation utilised several different
methods to capture the impact training had on their business and on their employees. In
some companies, data was taken six months before and after the training took place (such as
KPI data, sales and growth margins) to assess any short term benefit, while in other instances
mystery shopping and surveys with customers took place to help assess progress made in
customer service and soft skills.
“For each of these processes we’ve identified 5 key performance indicators. If we’re getting it
right we’ll achieve the KPI’s.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Similarly, the quantitative survey revealed that 38% of retail automotive employers in England
who formally monitored the impact of training assessed the performance of trainees before
and after the training had taken place, with a further 35% assessing performance solely after
training.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 118 of 197
August 2006
Where employers involved in the depth consultation assessed the quality of the training
received, this was done by evaluation forms and post training satisfaction surveys with
attendees. These methods were used to gain qualitative feedback on the usefulness of the
training, whether the objectives of the training were met, how the course was delivered and
whether it had been of any help to their everyday working life. It was noted that evaluation
forms were not particularly effective when assessing the quality of training, as the response
rate was usually low. This was perceived to be especially the case with management training
where attendees felt the process was too bureaucratic. Employers also used tactics such as
training observation and assessor monitoring to evaluate first hand the quality of training.
“For each training session that employees attend there is an evaluation form, which is to be
filled in, as to expectations and feedback etc. It’s not always filled in by employees though
and sometimes managers do not return them either. Due to audit we have identified it has to
go in their personnel file.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
There was perceived to be a degree of variation in the way different types of training were
evaluated. It was felt that technical training could not be evaluated in the same way as other
training; management, sales and soft skills training were seen as much easier to evaluate in
the short term. A specific problem was identified when evaluating technical training; it was
thought that much of this was pre-emptive training. If a new product or technique (etc.) was in
the pipeline for introduction then staff were sent on training courses 6 to 12 months in
advance of its introduction, therefore evaluating how effective it had been was impossible for
at least a year.
“It would be different certainly for technical training for the simple reason your always trying
to pre-empt changes in vehicle systems. So the chances are that they come to learn about
the latest Mercedes ECU but they may not see one for 6 to 12 months so it’s hard to measure
if it’s had a direct impact.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Employers quantified the benefits of training in a number of ways, though in general, it was
looked at from the perspective of the customer. Employers discussed customer satisfaction
as the key to the business and the aim of training in many cases was to improve this
indicator, along with measuring repeat custom and the overall customer base.
It was thought that a satisfied customer base would guarantee increased profitability; if the
employee made the customer feel looked after, they would have confidence in the company
which in turn would increase profit. It was therefore felt that competency before and after was
a quantifiable measure used by employers.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 119 of 197
August 2006
“I think the key issues are staff retention and customer satisfaction, by definition they go hand
in hand. If you have competent staff, you’ll have satisfied customers.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“Clearly good training means that the employee is able to attract customers and they have
confidence that they’re able to do a good job, selling a good product and they can provide the
necessary after care.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Analysis of the return on investment from training was undertaken by most of the employers
involved in the depth qualitative consultation. However, it was perceived as being extremely
difficult to accomplish given that there were so many different aspects to take into
consideration. Despite this, it was seen as important to justify the training expenditure and
ensure that it was providing value for money.
“There are a lot of things to take account of and it is such a complex subject to try and
assess but we do try to capture return on investment.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
“We do measure return on investment but I’d have to say it is one of those areas that’s
always a bit blurred around the edges. For example, on a finance course you may see an
uplift in gross margin over a 2 month period. Is it a direct result of the training module that the
guy attended or is it just that business trends changed? I like to think that’s it’s to do with the
training but hand on heart I couldn’t say it definitely is.”
Employer – Retail Automotive Sector
Despite the difficulties outlined above in making concrete measurements of the impact of
training on a business, the quantitative survey revealed that overall 91.9% of employers in
England who provided training for employees were either fairly satisfied (42.9%) or very
satisfied (49.0%) with its impact on the performance of their business. This suggests that the
quality of provision is at least reasonably high. Among these employers, the most frequently
expressed reason for their satisfaction was ‘Improvements in quality of work/less
wastage/customer returns’ cited by 47.2%. In addition, 32.9% thought there had been
‘Improvements in the knowledge of employees’ and 30.0% considered that the training had
‘Improved the productivity of their business.’
Figure 72.
Quantitative Survey: Perceived Business Benefits of Training among sector
employers in England
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 120 of 197
August 2006
What impact would you say the training
you have offered to your employees
has had on…
Productivity of Employees
Attracting and Recruiting Staff
Overall Business Productivity
Staff Retention
Large
Impact (%)
Small
Impact (%)
No
Impact (%)
Unable
to Say (%)
49.0%
14.6%
36.8%
52.1%
42.9%
27.1%
57.1%
29.2%
8.2%
47.9%
4.1%
12.5%
0.0%
10.4%
2.0%
6.3%
Source: Ci Research Quantitative Survey
As can be seen from the table above, the most significant perceived benefits of training
among quantitative survey respondents in England were in the productivity of employees and
staff retention. While the majority of respondents considered training to have a ‘small’ impact
on their overall business productivity, it is also significant that only 4.1% of all respondents
considered that the training that they had provided had no impact at all in this area,
suggesting a reasonable level of satisfaction with the quality of training in practical terms;
although of course this conclusion should be considered in the context of the previously
mentioned difficulties in measuring absolutely the impact of training on a business.
7.4.1
Provider evaluation of training
In order to evaluate the quality of the automotive training that was delivered, providers tended
to conduct self-assessments, sending out satisfaction forms to both employers and learners
upon the completion of training. Other basic quality assessment procedures included keeping
a track record of completion rates; with low rates being a clear indicator that programme
improvements are required. Observational activities and independent assessments of quality
(i.e. by ALI and Ofsted) were also mentioned.
“You have to implement continual self assessment and to continually ask the industry if what
is being delivered meets their needs. You can’t bury your head in the sand, it is essential to
keep up with change.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
The main driving factors for improvement included quality, value for money and achievement
rates. There was also recognition that minimum requirements for quality were driven by
funding agencies.
“We are forced now to achieve certain floor targets in terms of retention and achievement or
our funding is cut.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“There would be little point of asking clients to spend money if there was no demonstrable
benefit to them. It is vital that employers are able to demonstrate positive changes.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 121 of 197
August 2006
Although the majority of the training providers surveyed believed that the floor targets for the
sector were set at the correct level, others thought that they were set far too low.
“Floor targets are about right, for apprenticeships there is a target to reach of 70% but this is
unrealistic. The fall out rate over the first 6 months is too high. Performance assessment
should take place after 12 to 15 weeks to give a true reflection. On long courses (2 years)
45% is probably as good as it gets, you might be lucky and get 55%.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
“Floor targets are miles too low. Personally I think anyone who doesn’t have an achievement
rate of over 50% shouldn’t have a contract.”
Training Provider – Retail Automotive Sector
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 122 of 197
August 2006
8 Conclusions
Stage 2 of the Skills Needs Assessment for the retail automotive sector has drawn on an
extensive range of existing secondary data and has utilised new information derived from
both qualitative and quantitative investigations. Whilst gaps in understanding are evident,
primarily because of the limitations of the provider and learner data available, it is clear that
the pattern of provision and its uptake is diverse and complex.
The National Employer Skills Survey (2004) for England identified that 10% fewer employers
within the Automotive Skills footprint provided training for employees than the average for all
occupational sectors (54% in the Automotive Skills sector versus 64% overall). This finding
has been mirrored by the quantitative survey of employers conducted for the Stage 2
assessment which also found that only 52.5% of employers in England had provided training
for employees in the past twelve months, with small companies having a much lower
propensity to offer training (41.4% of companies with 1 to 9 employees) than their larger
counterparts (94.4% of companies with over 100 employees).
At the time of the Stage 2 assessment (December, 2005) there were both Further Education
and Work Based Learning courses serving the automotive retail sector throughout England.
However, it was clear that the FE provision was clustered geographically, with the South of
England (South West and South East) having the greatest volume of courses, as well as the
greatest
variety.
In
all
regions
Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair,
Vehicle
Maintenance/Repair/Servicing and Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair taken together made up
a majority of courses, with Vehicle Maintenance/Repair/Servicing the single most popular
course in most regions.
A number of key trends in provision in England have been identified. In Further Education,
Vehicle Maintenance/Repair dominated the statistics for the automotive retail sector; more
than 90% of all learners took this course and received more than 94% of all LSC funding.
Participation in Further Education in the sector was dominated by younger learners: those
under 25 made up 81.9% of all learners. More than half of all qualifications were taken at
Level 1, and most were taken full time. Most LSC funding (52.5%) was targeted at Level 1
courses.
For Work Based Learning, the picture was reversed, with 60.6% of courses taken at Level 3,
and only 0.2% at Level 1. Vehicle Maintenance/Repair was again the most popular course,
although a significant proportion of learners took Vehicle Body Maintenance/Repair. 99.9% of
learners were under 25, perhaps because funding is directed toward these age groups.
However, government policy in this area has changed since the data was gathered; limited
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 123 of 197
August 2006
funding is now available for over 25s, but only in priority areas or for individuals to obtain their
first NVQ Level 2/equivalent qualification.
In terms of Higher Education, 94.7% of all Automotive Engineering learning took place in
England (involving 2,381 learners), a proportion larger than England’s share of the UK
population. A large proportion of these students were studying in the West Midlands (25.2%)
and the East of England (19.1%), although in the later provision was concentrated close to
London. In contrast, there were no automotive engineering enrolments at all in the North East.
Most study was toward a First degree (62.0%), although 23.6% of students were studying for
Masters degrees and 7.4% towards an HND or HNC.
In terms of employer uptake of training, providers argued that employers were not
enthusiastic about sending their employees on training programmes or courses and that when
they did, they were eager for such training to be completed in a short space of time. In order
to increase the perceived value of training several providers claimed to actively seek out and
facilitate employer input in order that the training is industry led.
Of the employers in the retail automotive sector who provided training for employees it was
evident that the majority currently contribute to the cost of the training that their employees
receive, with external funding usually accounting for up to 50% of training costs. Within this, it
is clear that there are both direct and indirect costs of training which employers must take into
consideration, including factors such as travel and the cost of cover – a particular issue for
employers based in rural areas. Many employers within the sector report that training is
becoming more expensive, largely because of increasing customer demand and the pace of
change of technological developments.
In terms of the characteristics of training delivery, employers who use external training claim
that they do so because they believe that it has the capacity to increase their business
productivity and because it is the most effective method of updating their staff with regards to
specialist and new skills. However, those that train internally, claim that they do so on the
basis that it enables them to tailor training programmes and activities around their own needs.
The report assesses the training provision in England primarily via data provided by the
education inspectorates, Ofsted and ALI. In general, both inspectorates found quality of
provision to be satisfactory or better; however, Ofsted found that Further Education college
provision of retail automotive sector related subjects was significantly better in the northern
regions than the southern regions of England. Internal quality assurance was identified as a
slight weakness amongst all types of provider across the UK.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 124 of 197
August 2006
UK employers’ perceptions of training varied; while more than 90% in England believed that
the training they had supported had made a positive impact on some aspect of their business,
some types of training, particularly compulsory manufacturer training, were considered less
effective. There were criticisms of the quality of Further Education provision particularly in
terms of maintaining relevance to employers’ rapidly changing needs, primarily caused by the
rapid pace of technological change, and in terms of flexibility of provision, especially in
providing courses to fit employers’ logistical needs.
Training providers across the UK recognised the need for a wider, more flexible range of
courses, particularly to broaden the age range targeted. However, it was stressed that this
should not come at the expense of local availability in all regions. Policy in England has
moved significantly in this direction in recent years, although the changes are still in the
process of being translated into realities on the ground, through for example the LSC’s current
funding review and the provision of funding for at least some of those working in the retail
automotive sector aged over 25.
Despite the need for new approaches, the continuing importance of technical skills to the
retail automotive sector should not be underestimated. Training providers, both public and
private, need to ensure that what they are offering meets the needs of employers in the
sector, and keeping up with change is a crucial part of this process. The pace of technological
change has been highlighted as a challenge by both employers and training providers, with
the cost of new equipment presenting a burden to both. The establishment of CoVEs may
help
here,
concentrating
financial
resources
in
a
few
major
centres
so
that
expensive/resource intensive training can be offered.
Looking to the future, larger employers and public bodies all foresaw a substantial shift toward
increased management and leadership training in the sector. Currently this is an area where
the retail automotive sector falls behind others; particularly with respect to smaller companies
where training priorities tend to be solely focused on workshop activities. Addressing this
issue is generally agreed to be crucial to ensuring the sector’s continued efficiency and
competitiveness.
It is clear that courses need to be put in place that are designed to meet the needs of retail
automotive sector to enable it to attract potential employees, develop new employees, and
help existing employees keep their skills up to date so that they can develop their careers
within the sector.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 125 of 197
August 2006
Appendices
Appendix 1: Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) Qualifications
The following qualifications are available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Figure 73.
IMI national qualifications (VRQs)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Light Vehicle
Light Vehicle
Light Vehicle
Automotive Master Technician (Light)
Heavy Vehicle
Heavy Vehicle
Heavy Vehicle
Automotive Master Technician (Heavy)
Motorcycle
Motorcycle
Motorcycle
Lift Truck
Lift Truck
Lift Truck
Auto Electrical
Body
RepairError!
Bookmark not
defined.Error!
Bookmark not
defined.
Refinishing
Auto Electrical
Auto Electrical
MET/Body
Progression to:
Higher Education or Management and Technical
Body RepairError!
Bookmark not
defined.
Body Repair
Refinishing
Refinishing
MET/Body Fitting
MET/Body Fitting
Qualifications
There are further qualifications available in Scotland.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 126 of 197
August 2006
Appendix 2: City and Guilds Automotive Qualifications
The following qualifications are those available in England; there are others available in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Figure 74.
City and Guilds automotive qualifications
Qualification Title
Level
Type of Award
Automotive Vehicle Maintenance
Entry
Vocational
Drivers hours recording equipment
Entry
Vocational
Automotive Vehicle Servicing and Repair
Level 1
Progression
Automotive Vehicle Servicing and Repair
Level 2
Progression
Automotive Vehicle Servicing and Repair
Level 3
Progression
Certificate in Advanced Automotive Diagnostic Techniques
Level 4
Vocational
Vehicle Fitting
Levels 1-2
NVQ
Mechanical Fitting Plant Maintenance and Metal Machinery
Levels 1-2
Vocational
Automotive Qualifications
Levels 1-3
NVQ
Vehicle Maintenance and Repair
Levels 1-3
NVQ
Vehicle Parts Distribution and Supply
Levels 1-3
NVQ
Vehicle Parts Operations
Levels 1-3
NVQ
Maintenance and Repair of Construction Plant*
Levels 1-3
Vocational
Vehicle Body Competences
Levels 1-3
Vocational
Automotive Qualifications
Levels 1-3
Vocational
Motor Vehicle Engineering*
Levels 1-4
IVQ
Motor Vehicle Body and Paint Operations
Levels 2-3
NVQ
Motor Vehicle Roadside Assistance and Recovery
Levels 2-3
NVQ
Vehicle Parts Operations
Levels 2-3
Vocational
Engineering Council Examinations
Levels 4-5
Vocational
Exhaust Fitting
No Level
Vocational
Training Requirements for the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR)
No Level
Vocational
Tyre Fitting – Agricultural Tyres
No Level
Vocational
Tyre Fitting – Earth Mover Tyres
No Level
Vocational
Tyre Fitting – Motor Cycle Tyres
No Level
Vocational
Tyre Fitting – Solid Tyres
No Level
Vocational
Tyre Fitting Advanced – Car and Van Tyres
No Level
Vocational
Land Based Engineering
Apprenticeship
* International Qualifications
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 127 of 197
August 2006
Appendix 3: Automotive Training Provider Depth Discussion Guide
Automotive Training Provider Depth Discussion Guide
Training Practices, Drivers and Barriers
Interviewer details
Name of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Time of interview:
Duration of interview:
Respondent details (FROM SAMPLE)
Name:
Job title:
Organisation:
Telephone Number:
Contact Email:
Introduction (PLEASE READ)
“Good morning / Good afternoon. My name is ……………… and I’m from Ci Research. We
have been commissioned by Automotive Skills to carry out an assessment of the
characteristics of training within the Automotive sector.
You may already be aware that Sector Skills Councils have replaced National Training
Organisations, and that Automotive Skills is the new Sector Skills Council for the whole of the
retail motor industry. Automotive Skills has been given the remit of working with Employers
and Training Providers to drive up skill levels in the sector.
The reason for this call is that ……………. (from sample) suggested that you were a key
person to speak to regarding training within the Automotive Sector.
In light of this, would you be willing to take part in an in-depth telephone interview, obviously
at a time convenient to yourself, to talk through your organisation’s approach to Automotive
training. The interview should take no longer than one hour and will make an important
contribution to the development of the Automotive sector. Your answers will be treated
confidentially, and only reported to Automotive Skills in an aggregated format.”
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 128 of 197
August 2006
“The aim of this discussion is to identify the key drivers influencing training within the
Automotive Sector and we would appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions
openly and honestly.”
(NOTE: Ci will gain as much detail as possible on the provider (from the provision
mapping exercise) and respondent (from the Automotive Skills sponsor) before
conducting the interview to reduce the time spent on Sections A and B.)
SECTION A: THE PROVIDER CONTEXT
QA1:
Could we start by you outlining the characteristics of the Automotive training that your
organisation provides?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö The Automotive sector(s) catered for (i.e. Fast Fit, Heavy Vehicle etc)
Ö The range of Automotive training available (i.e. Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4
qualifications; non-accredited short courses etc)
Ö The characteristics of delivery (i.e. full-time / part-time)
Ö The number of learners involved in Automotive training at the organisation, if
possible outlining trends (i.e. are numbers involved increasing or declining)
SECTION B: THE RESPONDENT CONTEXT
QB1:
Could you please outline your role within the organisation and your responsibilities
with regards to Automotive training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Contextual factors:
♦ Role definition
♦ Training responsibilities
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 129 of 197
August 2006
SECTION C: MARKET ASSESSMENTS
“Thank you. I would now like to examine how your organisation establishes the demand for
Automotive training and the key skills deficiencies that you have identified.”
QC1:
Firstly, how do you establish the level and characteristics of demand for Automotive
training in the sectors and Labour Markets you serve?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QC2:
Which of the following Labour Market Information sources does the provider utilise:
♦ Historical employer demand?
♦ Historical student demand?
♦ Historical destination analysis?
♦ Specific employer contact / surveys?
♦ Informal employer contact as part of trainee monitoring visits?
♦ Engagement with employer networks / groups?
♦ Secondary Labour Market Information from the:
ƒ LSC?
ƒ LA’s?
ƒ RDA’s?
ƒ DTI?
Which source or sources of Labour Market Information best helps the provider
determine skills gaps and training needs?
What are the barriers to gathering Labour Market Information:
♦ Provider staff, time or financial resources?
♦ What are the difficulties of establishing the needs of SME’s?
♦ What are the difficulties of establishing the needs of larger employers?
How does the provider use the Labour Market Information:
♦ To ensure provision reflects employer needs / demand?
♦ To set the level of recruitment for the coming year?
♦ For long-term planning?
Would you say that the demand for Automotive training in the sectors and Labour
Markets you serve is increasing, decreasing or stagnant?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QC3:
What evidence do you have?
Are there any variations between the different Automotive sectors that the provider
serves?
Are there any variations in demand between employers of different sizes?
Of the following competency categories, which have you identified as being deficient
within the Automotive sector or sectors you cater for?
♦
♦
Management and Leadership Skills
Technical Skills
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 130 of 197
August 2006
♦
♦
♦
General Skills (such as communication, problem solving and team working
competencies)
Basic Skills (such as literacy and numeracy competencies)
Life Skills (such as attitude, motivation, willingness to learn and reliability)
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QC4:
Why have these competency gaps arisen? Is it down to a lack of available training or
the limited number and / or quality of the workforce in these areas?
Are there any variations between different Automotive sectors?
Are there any variations between employers of different sizes?
What are the Automotive employers that you work with looking for in terms of levels
and types of training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QC5:
Levels of qualifications, including:
♦ Graduate and post graduate degrees?
♦ Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 NVQ’s or SVQ’s?
♦ Non-accredited short courses?
♦ Seminars and workshops?
Type of delivery:
♦ Full-time versus part-time courses?
♦ On-the-job versus off-the-job training?
♦ Block release versus day release?
♦ How important is the provision of new forms of access to training to
Automotive employers (such as e-learning or distance learning)?
Are there any variations between different Automotive sectors?
Are there any variations between employers of different sizes?
In terms of the courses and qualifications that are currently available, to what extent
do you feel that they meet the needs of the Automotive sector or sectors that you
serve?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Do the levels of Automotive courses and qualifications reflect the needs of Automotive
employers (for example, is there insufficient or excessive emphasis on Level 2 or
Level 3 provision)?
Does the content of qualifications reflect the requirements of Automotive employers
(for example, is the balance between ‘technical’ and ‘soft-skills’ appropriate)?
Are there any qualifications or courses that you feel are lacking given the needs of the
Automotive sector or sectors you cater for:
• Pre-Entry Qualifications?
• Customer Service Qualifications?
• Technical Qualifications?
• Management Qualifications?
• Other Qualifications?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 131 of 197
August 2006
SECTION D: FUNDING ISSUES
Thank you. I would now like to focus on the issue of funding for Automotive training and the
extent to which it makes it commercially viable for you to meet the identified employer
demand.”
QD1:
To begin, could you outline who pays for the Automotive training you provide and
offer approximations of the proportions that they contribute?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö The proportion of funding contributed by:
o External / public funding bodies; which funding bodies contribute?
o The Provider themselves?
o Employers?
o Trainees / Learners?
Ö Is there any variation in contribution proportions between different Automotive
sectors?
Ö Is there any variation in contribution levels between different sizes of employers?
QD2:
Who do you feel should actually be paying for Automotive training and in what
proportions?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö The proportion of funding the provider feels should be provided by:
o External / public funding bodies? Why?
o Employers? Why?
ƒ Should there be a variation in the contribution of employers to the cost
of training based on their size, turnover etc?
ƒ What would be the impact of taking this approach?
o Trainees / Learners? Why?
o Someone else? Who? Why?
QD3:
What factors do you believe drive the external funding of Automotive Training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Are external / public funding bodies more interested in providers achieving numeric
targets (i.e. the numbers registering and completing courses) than policy objectives
(i.e. increasing skills levels in the sector)?
Ö How does this affect delivery – would you like to be able to offer a higher level of
training to a smaller number of people? Would this be more beneficial?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 132 of 197
August 2006
QD4:
Do you feel that the level of external funding for Automotive training is sufficient to
meet the skills needs of the sector?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Is the level of external funding available for Automotive training adequate or is the
shortfall prohibitively large – does it discourage employer and / or employee
uptake of training?
Ö Does the level of external funding take into account the degree of provider
investment required to offer different forms of Automotive training (i.e. motorcycle
repair versus heavy vehicle repair)?
Ö Is funding focused on particular Automotive sectors?
Ö Is funding focused on particular types or levels of qualifications?
Ö Is funding focused on full-time education rather than part-time apprenticeship
training?
QD5:
Do the characteristics of external funding make the provision of certain types of
Automotive training commercially unviable?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö If so, which types of training?
Ö How significant is the problem?
QD6:
What key changes should be made to the current model of public funding provision to
improve the quality, type and coverage of Automotive training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Is it difficult to locate sources of external funding and / or high quality information
about eligibility and the application process?
Ö Is the duration of external funding contracts an issue for providers?
o Do short-term contracts dissuade other providers from offering
Automotive training?
o Do short-term contracts divert attention from the improvement of
delivery to the retention of funding?
Ö To what extent is payment made in arrears?
o How does this impact on provider cash-flow and the number of
Automotive training places that can be offered?
Ö Is public funding of poor or unneeded provision an issue in the Automotive
sector?
o If so, what is the scale of the problem?
o Who should be responsible for ensuring this doesn’t continue?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 133 of 197
August 2006
SECTION E: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
“The following questions focus on the business development activities which your
organisation undertakes within the Automotive sector.
Firstly, I would like to focus on the issues surrounding trainee recruitment.”
QE1:
Do you actively promote the Automotive sector and the training that you offer within
schools, particularly to the 14-16 age group?
If YES, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö How?
Ö How frequently?
Ö What is the perceived benefit of this engagement?
If NO, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Why not?
o Is cost an issue?
o Is time an issue?
o Is it not perceived as being important?
QE2:
What difficulties does your organisation and the sector in general face when trying to
promote Automotive careers to young people?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Do vocational courses and the Automotive sector in particular have a poor image
amongst teachers, students and parents?
Ö To what extent is Automotive training affected by competition from alternative
occupational sectors and non-vocational education provision?
th
Ö Is it difficult to develop relationships with schools who have 6 form provision
because they are in direct competition for post-16 students?
Ö Do you feel that Careers Advisors accurately reflect the sectoral employment
prospects to young people, outlining the range occupations in the sector and the
scope for progression?
QE3:
Do you actively promote the Automotive training that you offer to adults?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Do you undertake any marketing activity for the Automotive courses you offer
specifically targeted at adult learners?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 134 of 197
August 2006
QE4:
What difficulties does your organisation and the sector in general face when trying to
promote Automotive training to adults?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QE5:
A reluctance to re-enter the world of education and training?
A lack of financial support from employers for adult training?
A lack of financial support from funding bodies for adult training?
Is the quality of recruits a major issue for training providers and employers operating
in the Automotive sector?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Do vocational courses tend to attract the lower achievers from the school
educational system? Is this even more of an issue for Automotive courses?
Ö Is the quality of new recruits an issue at all entry / qualification levels (i.e. the
Automotive sector has the lowest inflow of graduates of any industry sector; 0.1%
of existing management stock)?
Ö Is it more / less of an issue for your organisation than the sector in general (i.e. is
it less of an issue for Company Academies / Training Centres with a respected
brand (BMW, Kwik Fit etc))?
“I would now like to focus on the level of collaboration between yourselves and Automotive
employers; examining the degree of existing interaction and the potential for future
development.”
QE6:
How do employers become aware of the Automotive training programmes /
qualifications you offer?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Previously established relationships?
Word of mouth from other employers?
Marketing / promotional literature?
Via employer forums?
Networking events?
Following a direct approach from your staff?
Other methods?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 135 of 197
August 2006
QE7:
What factors do you feel most strongly influence employers when determining what
training providers to use?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
QE8:
Location?
High quality equipment and facilities?
Availability of specialist staff?
Reputation for quality?
Price?
The ability to offer tailored training packages?
Do you seek to involve employers in the development or design of your Automotive
training programmes?
If YES, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö How do you engage with Automotive employers?
o How do you engage with SME’s?
o How do you engage with larger employers?
Ö What is the perceived benefit of this engagement?
If NO, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Why not?
o Is cost an issue?
o Is time an issue?
o Is it not perceived as being important?
QE9:
What are the barriers to engaging a wider range of employers and increasing their
involvement in training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Scepticism amongst employers about the relevance of off-the-job training?
Ö Scepticism amongst employers about the value of full-time training coursers and
the skills of the students post-course completion?
Ö Poor previous experience of training and trainees?
Ö A perceived lack of training provision flexibility?
Ö A fear by employers that individuals will leave their employment if they become
too highly trained?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 136 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F: THE QUALITY OF AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING PROVISION
“The following questions focus on how you evaluate the quality of the Automotive training you
offer and what drives you to improve.”
QF1:
Firstly, could you outline how you evaluate the quality of the Automotive training you
provide?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Methods of assessment:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QF2:
Feedback forms
Follow-up with trainees
Follow-up with trainees’ employer
Pier assessment
Levels of retention
Levels of completion
Destination analysis
Assessment of levels of repeat usage (a strong indicator of
quality)
Independent Formal Assessments (ALI, Ofsted)
Other techniques
What drives you as a provider of Automotive training to improve?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö What internal drivers are there for the improvement of quality (i.e. to gain a
reputation for quality which can be communicated to employers)?
Ö What external drivers are there for the improvement of quality (i.e. competition,
floor targets)?
QF3:
Focusing on the Floor Targets set for Automotive training provision, do you feel that
they are set too high, at the right level, or too low?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö How will the level of Floor Targets affect the quality of Automotive training
provision?
Ö Are they set high enough to eradicate poor provision?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 137 of 197
August 2006
SECTION G: LINKS WITH OTHER AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING PROVIDERS
“I would now like to focus on the level of collaboration between yourselves and other
providers of Automotive training; examining the degree of existing interaction and the
potential for future development.”
QG1:
Does your organisation collaborate, either formally or informally, with other providers
of Automotive training?
If YES, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
What form of provider interaction does the organisation participate in (i.e. a local
provider network, a national provider network, independent informal discussions etc)?
What is the perceived benefit of provider interaction:
o The exchange of information, ideas and good practice?
o The joint development of provision (i.e. the development of short courses
targeted at employers in specific sectors)?
Do you feel that the level of your collaboration is adequate or do you believe that your
organisation and the Automotive sector in general would benefit from enhanced
provider interaction?
What are the barriers to enhanced collaboration (i.e. time, cost, the perception of
competition) and what can be done to overcome these barriers?
If NO, issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö
Ö
Ö
What are the barriers to collaboration (i.e. time, cost, the perception of competition)
and what can be done to overcome these barriers?
Is there a lack of Automotive providers with which to collaborate?
Is there a lack of interest in collaboration from the Independent Company Academies /
Training Centres?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 138 of 197
August 2006
SECTION H: FUTURE TRAINING PROVISION
QH1:
How do you expect the composition of training provision in the Automotive sector to
develop over the next 5-10 years?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
Ö Do you expect:
o The number of providers to stay the same? Why?
o The number of providers to increase? Why?
o The number of providers to decrease – with a consolidation of
provision into a smaller number of larger-scale providers? Why?
Ö What impact will this development have on training in the sector – its cost, its
accessibility, its efficiency?
Ö How do you expect this to impact on the Automotive training that your
organisation offers?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 139 of 197
August 2006
SECTION I: OTHER ISSUES
QI1:
Finally, are there any other comments relating to Automotive training, in either your
organisation or the Automotive sector in general, that you would like to make?
THANK AND CLOSE
“Thank you for taking part in this research, your views are important and will be fed back to
Automotive Skills.”
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 140 of 197
August 2006
Appendix 4: Automotive Employer Depth Discussion Guide
Automotive Employer Depth Discussion Guide
Training Practices and Attitudes
Interviewer details
Name of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Time of interview:
Duration of interview:
Respondent details (FROM SAMPLE)
Name:
Job title:
Organisation:
Telephone Number:
Contact Email:
Introduction (PLEASE READ)
“Good morning / Good afternoon. My name is ……………… and I’m from Ci Research. We
have been commissioned by Automotive Skills to carry out an assessment of the
characteristics of training within the Automotive sector.
You may already be aware that Sector Skills Councils have replaced National Training
Organisations, and that Automotive Skills is the new Sector Skills Council for the whole of the
retail motor industry. Automotive Skills has been given the remit of working with Employers
and Training Providers to drive up skill levels in the sector.
The reason for this call is that ……………. (from sample) suggested that you were a key
person to speak to regarding training within the Automotive Sector.
In light of this, would you be willing to take part in an in-depth telephone interview, obviously
at a time convenient to yourself, to talk through your organisation’s approach to training. The
interview should take no longer than one hour and will make an important contribution to the
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 141 of 197
August 2006
development of the Automotive sector. Your answers will be treated confidentially, and only
reported to Automotive Skills in an aggregated format.”
“The aim of this discussion is to identify the key drivers influencing training within the
Automotive Sector and we would appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions
openly and honestly.”
SECTION A: EMPLOYER CONTEXT
QA1:
Could we start by you outlining the Automotive sector or sectors that your
organisation / business operates in?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
QA2:
Outline the thirteen Automotive sub-sectors if necessary:
a) New vehicle sales - (franchised dealers, brokers, car supermarkets, on-line
retailers, etc.)
b) Used vehicle sales - (franchised dealers, car supermarkets, auctioneers, and
independents)
c) Regular maintenance and repair - (usually known as M&R, or “the local
garage”, that may be franchised or independent, plus mobile servicing, auto
electricians, and so on)
d) Parts suppliers, including factories, wholesalers and retailers
e) MOT testing and certification
f) Vehicle body repairs - (usually following an accident or damage, including panel
beating, painting, windscreen repairs, sunroofs, etc.)
g) Restoration services
h) Valeting services
i) Fast-fit operations - (in the style of 'Kwik Fit', for tyres, exhausts, clutches,
batteries, and other 'quick' replacement maintenance jobs carried out on demand
on the spot)
j) Other fitting operations - (e.g. ICE audio, electrical, security, etc)
k) Roadside rescue and recovery services - (e.g. AA, RAC, Green Flag, etc., and
local breakdown operators)
l) Vehicle leasing and contract hire - (e.g. Lloyds TSB Autolease, LeasePlan UK,
Interleasing (UK), Lex Vehicle Leasing, etc.)
m) Daily rental fleets - (e.g. Hertz, Avis, etc); self-drive, vintage, classic, etc.
What is the size of the organisation / business?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Contextual factors:
o Sales / turnover
o Number of employees
o Number of sites and geographic coverage within the UK
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 142 of 197
August 2006
SECTION B: RESPONDENT CONTEXT
QB1:
Could you please outline your role within the organisation / business and your
responsibilities with regards to training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Contextual factors:
o Role definition (i.e. Director, Personnel or Human Resource Manager,
Training Manager)
o Training responsibilities (i.e. local, regional, national or international)
o Experience with regards to training (i.e. time in the role)
SECTION C: THE DRIVERS OF TRAINING
“Thank you. I would now like to focus on how you identify the nature and scale of training
requirements within your organisation / business.”
QC1:
Firstly, to what extent is the need for training within your organisation / business
driven by internal or external forces?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
How important are internal forces; such as a desire to:
o Improve performance?
o Increase customer service?
How important are external forces; such as training requirements created by:
o Legislation?
o Contractual obligations (i.e. franchise dealers whose employees have to
complete manufacturer training courses)?
o Technological or product developments in the sector which create skills gaps?
o The activities of competitors?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 143 of 197
August 2006
SECTION D: PRIORITIES FOR THE UPGRADING OF SKILLS
QD1:
Of the following competency categories, which has your organisation / business
prioritised for training and why?
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Management and Leadership Skills
Technical Skills
General Skills (such as communication, problem solving and team working
competencies)
Basic Skills (such as literacy and numeracy competencies)
Life Skills (such as attitude, motivation, willingness to learn and reliability)
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QD2:
How does the organisation / business determine which skills gaps are most critical in
delivering profitability?
How does the organisation / business differentiate between ‘essential’ and nice-tohave’ competencies?
Are some competencies such as ‘Life Skills’ perceived as being un-trainable?
Of the following occupation groups which are most likely to receive training within your
organisation / business and why?
♦
♦
♦
♦
Management Occupations
Sales Occupations
Workshop Occupations (i.e. Body Repair, Fast Fit etc)
Administrative Occupations
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QD3:
Do you assess which occupations have the greatest impact on profitability prior to
allocating training provision? If so, how is this done?
Does the training within the organisation / business focus on occupations which are
perceived as having the greatest impact on profitability or performance?
Or
Does training within the organisation / business focus on occupations with the
greatest competency gaps?
Who determines the training action to be taken?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
Are training decisions made at a branch level or by the head office? Why?
Is the training ‘action required’ determined solely by the employer themselves or do
external organisations have an input (i.e. organisations with whom they have
franchise contracts or the providers of ‘Product Compliment’ training)?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 144 of 197
August 2006
SECTION E: TRAINING PLANS AND BUDGETS
“The following questions focus on how you plan for training within your organisation.”
QE1:
Are the training activities and priorities for your organisation / business contained
within a Company training plan?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
QE2:
ƒ
If NO, why?
o Is it not perceived as being necessary?
o Is the size of the organisation / business an issue?
o Are resource factors an issue?
ƒ
If YES, how?
o What does the plan contain?
o How often is the plan updated?
o What is the perceived value of the plan to the strategic planning
process?
Does your organisation / business have a formal training budget or is training funded
reactively when demand is identified?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
QE3:
ƒ
If the organisation / business has a formal training budget:
n) What are the perceived advantages of having a formal training budget (i.e.
enables forward planning activities)?
o) Is the training budget flexible or fixed?
ƒ
If the organisation / business funds training reactively:
p) Why?
i) Is a reactive approach perceived as being beneficial?
ii) Are resources limited, preventing specific allocations for specific
activities?
Do employees within the company have Individual training plans?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
If NO, why?
o Investigate whether this is because evaluation is perceived as being
unimportant, or whether it is prevented by factors such as insufficient
time, money or staff resources
If YES, how?
o What do the plans contain?
o How often are the plans updated?
o What is the perceived of the plans to the development of both the
individual and the organisation / business?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 145 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F: THE DELIVERY OF TRAINING
“The following sections focus on the delivery of training within your organisation.”
QF1:
Could you tell me whether your organisation / business meets all of its training needs
internally, via external private or public sector training providers, or by a combination
of internal and external provision?
Before you answer I would like to define what is meant by Internal and External
provision.
Internal Provision refers to all training that is delivered by your organisation /
business, either within the workplace or at designated training centres.
An example of internal provision would be Kwik-Fit, who provide ‘in-house’ training
on-site at their Kwik-Fit Centres and off-site at their Kwik-Fit Training Academies.
External Provision refers to all training that is delivered by an external organisation.
This includes public sector training, such as that provided by Higher Education
establishments, and private sector training, offered by independent training providers
(ReMIT) and companies with which your organisation / business has working
relationships with but no direct affiliation too.
Examples of private forms of external provision include companies who offer Product
Compliment training as a result of the purchase of new or updated equipment (i.e. a
new diagnostic machine) or a car dealership which receives sales and servicing
training from multiple car manufacturers.
INTERNALLY ONLY: Ask respondent SECTION F PART A
EXTERNALLY ONLY: Ask respondent SECTION F PART B
COMBINATION: Ask respondent SECTION F PART C
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 146 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F PART A: INTERNAL PROVISION ONLY
“You state that your organisation / business meets all of its training requirements internally.”
QFA1: How and where does the training take place and who is it delivered by?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Where does the training take place:
o On-site within the workplace?
o Off-site at a designated company training centre?
o Via a combination of workplace and training centre delivery?
If training centres are involved, is there a single training centre or multiple training
centres throughout the country?
How is the training delivered:
o On-the-job or off-the-job?
o Block release?
o Day release?
o Other methods?
o Via a combination of delivery methods?
Who is the training delivered by? Does the organisation / business have dedicated
training staff?
QFA2: Why does your organisation / businesses meet all of its training requirements internally?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
The perceived value of internal training provision:
o Quality?
o Relevance?
o Cost?
The perceived flaws in private and public sector external provision:
o Availability?
o Quality?
o Cost?
o Relevance?
o Previous experience with external provision?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 147 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F PART B: EXTERNAL PROVISION ONLY
“You state that your organisation / business meets all of its training requirements externally.”
QFB1: How do you determine which external training providers to use to meet your training
requirements?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Ö
The extent to which the employer has a choice over how external training is delivered
and who it is delivered by. For example, how much of the training offered by the
employer is predetermined (i.e. Product Compliment training / training provided by
external companies with whom the employer has franchise agreements with) and how
much is down to their own discretion?
Which external training providers does the employer use:
o Private sector training providers?
o FE / HE / CoVE establishments?
o Universities?
o Other Companies?
o Other?
The factors which influence the employer when deciding which external training
provider or providers to use:
o The courses / qualifications on offer?
o Location?
o Quality of equipment and facilities?
o Specialist staff?
The extent to which the employer has developed a relationship with a single training
provider versus the propensity to use the services of a range of different providers
depending on the type and level of training
How frequently the employer uses the services of external training providers?
QFB2: How and where does the training take place?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Where does the training take place:
o On-site within the workplace?
o Off-site at the external provider’s training centre?
o Via a combination of workplace and training centre delivery?
How is the training delivered:
o Full-time or part-time?
o On-the-job or off-the-job?
o Block release?
o Day release?
o E-learning or distance learning?
o Via a combination of delivery methods?
Does the employer believe external training providers are prepared to be flexible to
meet their needs?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 148 of 197
August 2006
QFB3:Why does your organisation / businesses meet all of its training requirements externally?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Ö
ƒ
The characteristics of private and public sector external provision:
o Availability?
o Quality?
o Cost?
o Relevance?
The characteristics of the organisation / business which makes external provision
more appropriate:
o Cost of delivery?
o Size of company?
o Geographic dispersal of the organisation?
o The perceived benefit of external input (i.e. new ideas, experience of
working with other companies)?
Does the employer receive ‘Product Compliment’ training as a result of the purchase
of new or updated machinery or equipment, and if so, do they have any choice in how
or where it is delivered?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 149 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F PART C: COMBINATION OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DELIVERY
“You stated that your organisation / business meets its training requirements via a
combination of internal and external provision.”
QFC1: Approximately what proportion of your training requirements are met internally and what
proportion is met by external training providers?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
Internal provision proportion: ……………
External provision proportion: ……………
QFC2: What training do you deliver internally?
QFC3: How and where does the internal training take place and who is it delivered by?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Where does the training take place:
o On-site within the workplace?
o Off-site at a designated company training centre?
o Via a combination of workplace and training centre delivery?
If training centres are involved, is there a single training centre or multiple training
centres throughout the country?
How is the training delivered:
o On-the-job or off-the-job?
o Block release?
o Day release?
o Other methods?
o Via a combination of delivery methods?
Who is the training delivered by? Does the organisation / business have dedicated
training staff?
QFC4: Why does your organisation / businesses meet these training requirements internally?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
The perceived value of internal training provision:
o Quality?
o Relevance?
o Cost?
The perceived flaws in private and public sector external provision:
o Availability?
o Quality?
o Cost?
o Relevance?
o Previous experience with external provision?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 150 of 197
August 2006
QFC5: What training do you deliver using external training providers?
QFC6: How do you determine which external training providers to use to meet your training
requirements?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Ö
The extent to which the employer has a choice over how external training is delivered
and who it is delivered by. For example, how much of the training offered by the
employer is predetermined (i.e. Product Compliment training / training provided by
external companies with whom the employer has franchise agreements with) and how
much is down to their own discretion?
Which external training providers does the employer use:
o Private sector training providers?
o FE / HE / CoVE establishments?
o Universities?
o Other Companies?
o Other?
The factors which influence the employer when deciding which external training
provider or providers to use:
o The courses / qualifications on offer?
o Location?
o Quality of equipment and facilities?
o Specialist staff?
The extent to which the employer has developed a relationship with a single training
provider versus the propensity to use the services of a range of different providers
depending on the type and level of training
How frequently the employer uses the services of external training providers?
QFC7: How and where does the training take place?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Where the training takes place:
o On-site within the workplace?
o Off-site at the external provider’s training centre?
o Via a combination of workplace and training centre delivery?
ƒ
How is the training delivered:
o Full-time or part-time?
o On-the-job or off-the-job?
o Block release?
o Day release?
o E-learning or distance learning?
o Via a combination of delivery methods?
Does the employer believe external training providers are prepared to be flexible to
meet their needs?
ƒ
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 151 of 197
August 2006
QFC8: Why does your organisation / businesses meet these training requirements externally?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Ö
ƒ
The characteristics of private and public sector external provision:
o Availability?
o Quality?
o Cost?
o Relevance?
The characteristics of the organisation / business which makes external provision
more appropriate:
o Cost of delivery?
o Size of company?
o Geographic dispersal of the organisation?
o The perceived benefit of external input (i.e. new ideas, experience of
working with other companies)?
Does the employer receive ‘Product Compliment’ training as a result of the purchase
of new or updated machinery or equipment, and if so, do they have any choice in how
or where it is delivered?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 152 of 197
August 2006
SECTION G: COST OF TRAINING
“I would now like to focus on the cost of training to your organisation”
QG1:
To begin, could you outline who pays for the training that you provide and offer
approximations of the proportions they contribute?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
QG2:
The proportion of funding contributed by:
o The Employer, either directly or indirectly (i.e. through the purchase of new
machinery – Product Compliment Training)?
o The Public Sector, which external funding bodies contribute?
o Trainees / Learners?
Is there any variation between different types of training?
Is there any variation between training provided for different age groups?
Who do you feel should be paying for Automotive training?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
QG3:
The proportion of funding the employer feels should be provided by:
q) The Employer themselves? Why?
r) External / public funding bodies? Why?
s) Trainees / Learners? Why?
As an employer, is it made clear to you what sources of public funds are available for
particular types of courses and / or employees? Who by?
What are the direct and indirect costs of training to your organisation / business?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The cost of the training?
The cost of travel and subsistence?
The cost of cover for absence?
The cost of reduced productivity whilst training?
Does the organisation receive ‘Product Compliment Training’, such as that included
with the purchase of new equipment or products? Are these costs taken into account
when assessments of the cost of training to the organisation / business are made?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 153 of 197
August 2006
QG4:
Is the cost of training to your organisation / business increasing, decreasing or
stagnant?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
QG5:
Why?
o Is the demand for training within your organisation / business increasing (i.e.
more forms of training, more employees requiring more training)?
o Is the cost of the training programmes themselves increasing?
Given the costs of training, to what extent are you able to meet all of your training
needs?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
Are the budgets for training perceived as being sufficient?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 154 of 197
August 2006
SECTION H: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF TRAINING
“I would now like to focus on how you measure the impact of the training you have provided
to employees.”
QH1:
Do you attempt to evaluate the quality and impact of the training your employees
have received?
Issues to consider / discussion prompts:
ƒ
If NO, why?
o Investigate whether this is because evaluation is perceived as being
unimportant, or whether it is prevented by factors such as insufficient
resources (i.e. time, money or staff)
o Examine what evaluation methods would the employer like to be able to
use
ƒ
If YES, how?
o How does the employer isolate the effects of training from other factors
that may have contributed to the results?
o Does the employer assess the employees involved before they
undertake the training, after the training has been completed, or both
before and after the training? Why is this method used?
o What criteria for measuring quality does the employer use (i.e. follow-up
with trainees, follow-up with trainers, follow-up with employers, follow-up
with assessors, independent assessors, level of completion)?
o Is there any variation in the assessment of training for personnel in
different occupations?
o
o
o
ƒ Management Occupations
ƒ Sales Occupations
ƒ ‘Workshop’ Occupations (i.e. Body Repair, Fast Fit etc)
ƒ Administrative Occupations
ƒ Other Occupations
Is there any variation in the evaluation of different types of training?
Do certain types of training have measurable goals (i.e. the
productivity of a working in a certain process) and others not (i.e. soft
skills training)?
What are the quantifiable benefits of training?
Does the employer attempt to gauge the Return-On-Investment
(ROI) from training. Are the results of training converted into
monetary benefits in order to calculate the financial ROI or is the ROI
assessment restricted to the more subjective assessment of
objective satisfaction?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 155 of 197
August 2006
SECTION I: OTHER ISSUES
QI1:
Finally, are there any other comments relating to training, in either your organisation /
business or the Automotive sector in general, that you would like to make?
THANK AND CLOSE
“Thank you for taking part in this research, your views are important and will be fed back to
Automotive Skills.”
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 156 of 197
August 2006
Appendix 5: Automotive Employer Telephone Questionnaire
Automotive Employer Telephone Questionnaire
Training Activities and Attitudes
(Approximate Questionnaire Duration: 15 minutes)
SECTION A: RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION
(Number of Questions: 3 Min 5 Max)
(NOTE: this section is intended to identify the individual most knowledgeable about training
issues at the Automotive establishment contained within the sample. The need for the
following questions will be determined by the level of information contained within the
sample.)
QA1:
Hello, my name is ……………., and I am calling on behalf of Automotive Skills.
Please may I speak to …………….
a) Individual named in the sample?
b) The person who is responsible for training at this establishment?
Response / Category
QA2:
Code
Route
Put through
1
Go to QA4
Person based elsewhere
2
Go to QA2
No such person
3
Go to QA3
Refused to put through
4
Close Interview
Call back later
5
Make Appointment
ASK QA2 IF ‘PERSON BASED ELSEWHERE’ AT QA1
Can you give me the details of the person I need to speak to?
RECORD DETAILS: NAME, JOB TITLE, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 157 of 197
August 2006
QA3:
ASK QA3 IF ‘NO SUCH PERSON’ AT QA1
a)
May I speak to the Owner, Managing Director or Senior Manager?
b)
Can I check his / her name? WRITE IN NAME
c)
Can I check his / her job title?
Response / Category
QA4:
Code
Owner / Chairman / MD / Partner
1
Director or Manager of Personnel / HR / Recruitment / Employee Relations
2
Training Director / Manager
3
General / Site / Factory / Works Director or Manager
4
Administration / Office Director or Manager
5
Finance Director or Manager / Accountant / Company Secretary
6
Other Departmental Director or Manager
7
Senior Secretary / Secretary
8
Other (WRITE IN) …………………………………
9
Hello, my name is ………….. and I’m calling from Ci Research.
We have been
commissioned by Automotive Skills to carry out an assessment of the key issues
surrounding training in the Automotive sector.
You may already be aware that Sector Skills Councils have replaced National
Training Organisations, and that Automotive Skills is the new Sector Skills Council for
the whole of the retail motor industry.
Automotive Skills has been given the remit of working with Employers and Training
Providers to drive up skills levels within the sector and gaining an understanding of
the training practices of employers is vital to this process.
In light of this, would you be willing to take part in a short telephone interview which
focuses on your establishment’s training activities. Even if you do not carry out any
training we would still like to talk to you.
The interview can be conducted at a time convenient to yourself and will take
approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 158 of 197
August 2006
Your answers will be treated confidentially and will only be reported to Automotive
Skills in an aggregated format.
QA5:
Can I just check that you are the best person for me to speak to about the training
you undertake at this establishment and if so whether you are willing to take part in
the survey?
Response / Category
Code
Route
Respondent correct and willing to be interviewed
1
Go to QB1
Respondent correct but call back later
2
Make
Respondent correct but refuses to be interviewed
3
Close Interview
Someone else at the establishment more relevant
4
Take Contact Details
Training matters only dealt with at a higher level /
5
Ask QA6
Appointment
central establishment of organisation
QA6:
ASK QA6 IF ‘TRAINING DEALT WITH AT A HIGHER LEVEL / CENTRAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF ORGANISATION’ AT QA5
Does this mean that nobody here has any say in the types and amount of training
undertaken at this establishment?
Response / Category
Code
Route
Nobody here has a say
1
Ask QA7
Someone else here has a
2
Ask QA8
3
Close Interview
say
Don’t know
QA7:
ASK QA7 IF ‘NOBODY HERE HAS A SAY’ AT QA6
Can you give me the details of the person responsible for training at a higher level of
the organisation and their responsibilities?
RECORD DETAILS: NAME, JOB TITLE, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER. DO NOT
CONTACT AT THIS STAGE
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 159 of 197
August 2006
QA8:
ASK QA8 IF ‘SOMEONE ELSE HERE HAS A SAY’ AT QA6
Can you give me the contact details of the best person to speak to at this location?
RECORD DETAILS: NAME, JOB TITLE, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 160 of 197
August 2006
SECTION B: TRAINING PLANS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUDGETS
(Number of Questions: 2 Min 2 Max)
“The following questions focus on staff training and development.”
Q1:
Could you please tell me which of the following exist at your establishment…………..
READ OUT AND SELECT ONE OPTION FOR EACH CATEGORY
INTERVIEWER NOTE:
IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT ESTABLISHMENT IS COVERED BY A
COMPANY-WIDE BUSINESS PLAN / STRATEGY CODE AS ‘YES’
CODE AS ‘NO’ IF IN THE PROCESS OF DRAWING UP FIRST BUSINESS PLAN /
STRATEGY OR TRAINING PLAN / STRATEGY
CODE AS ‘YES’ IF CURRENTLY HAVE BUSINESS PLAN / STRATEGY OR
TRAINING PLAN / STRATEGY BUT IN THE PROCESS OF DRAWING UP A NEW
ONE
Response / Category
Yes
No
Don’t Know
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
A training budget?
1
2
3
A Dedicated Human Resources or Training
1
2
3
1
2
3
A business plan or Strategy that outlines the
objectives for the coming year?
A Company training plan or Strategy that
specifies in advance the level and type of training
your employees will need in the coming year?
A Training or Human Resources Handbook for
Staff?
Individual training plans for each of your
employees?
Manager
A Formal Staff Appraisal Process
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 161 of 197
August 2006
Q2:
Which of the following categories best reflects your annual expenditure on training at
this location? READ OUT CATEGORIES AND SELECT ONE OPTION ONLY
Response / Category
Code
Less than £500
1
£500 - £999
2
£1,000 - £4,999
3
£5,000 - £9,999
4
£10,000 - £49,999
5
£50,000 - £99,999
6
More than £100,000
7
Don’t know / refused (DO NOT READ OUT)
8
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 162 of 197
August 2006
SECTION C: DRIVERS BEHIND TRAINING
(Number of Questions: 3 Min 3 Max)
Q3:
How do you identify the training requirements of your employees? SELECT ALL
APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Q4:
Code
Informal staff appraisals
1
Formal staff appraisals
2
Performance monitoring
3
Customer satisfaction surveys
4
Independent evaluations / market research
5
Don’t undertake any specific activities to identify training requirements
6
Other (please specify)
7
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
8
What internal and external forces do you feel drive the need for training within your
organisation / business? SELECT ALL APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF
NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
A desire to improve performance / profitability
1
A desire to increase customer service
2
Legislation
3
Contractual obligations
4
Technological or product developments in the sector
5
The activities of competitors
6
Staff retention / reduce turnover of staff
7
Other (please specify)
8
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
9
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 163 of 197
August 2006
Q5:
And to what extent do you see there being a link between training and the
performance of your business? PROMPT WITH SCALE, SELECT ONE OPTION
ONLY
Response / Category
Code
Strong link
1
Weak link
2
No link at all
3
Impossible to say
4
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
5
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 164 of 197
August 2006
SECTION D: TRAINING ACTIVITIES
(Number of Questions: 3 Min 13 Max)
Q6:
Over the past 12 months, have you funded or arranged any training or development
for staff employed at this location?
Response / Category
Q7:
Code
Route
Yes
1
Ask Q7
No
2
Go to Q19
Don’t know
3
Go to Q20
Over the past 12 months, on average, how many days training and development
have you arranged for each member of staff receiving training? SELECT ONE
OPTION ONLY, PROMPT IF NECESSARY
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT SAYS ‘A WEEK’ OR ‘TWO WEEKS’
ETC PLEASE CHECK ‘SO HOW MANY WORKING DAYS IS THAT?’
Response / Category
Code
Less than 1 day
1
1-5 days
2
6-10 days
3
11-15 days
4
16-20 days
5
More than 20 days
6
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
7
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 165 of 197
August 2006
Q8:
What proportion of all the training that takes place in your organisation is for
employees in each of the following occupational categories? IF RESPONDENT /
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES ASK FOR
PRIMARY OCCUPATION. IF NO TRAINING IS OFFERED TO CERTAIN
OCCUPATIONS OR IF NO EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS
AT SITE ADD 0%. ENSURE THAT THE OVERALL TOTAL EQUALS 100%
Response / Category
Percentage
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
Management Occupations
3
Sales Occupations
3
Workshop Occupations
3
Administrative Occupations
3
100%
Q9:
Thinking of the occupational categories that you have just outlined as receiving
training, I would like you to estimate the percentage of the training that has been
informal and the percentage that has been formal.
By Informal Training I am referring to training, such as demonstrations, workshops
and non-accredited short courses, which has been offered without the intention of the
employee gaining a formal qualification.
By Formal Training I mean training that has been undertaken with the intention of
the employee obtaining a formally recognised qualification such as an NVQ, BTEC or
Graduate Degree.
Firstly, what percentage of the training offered to employees in ………………. (each
occupational category receiving training at QD4) is Informal and what percentage is
Formal?
A) ENSURE THAT THE TOTAL FOR EACH OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY
RECEIVING TRAINING EQUALS 100%
B) IF FORMAL TRAINING IS OFFERED ASK THE INTERVIEWEE WHAT TYPES
OF QUALIFICATIONS ARE SUPPORTED FOR EACH OCCUPATIONAL
CATEGORY AND RECORD
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 166 of 197
August 2006
A) TYPE OF TRAINING
B) QUALIFICATIONS
SUPPORTED
Response /
Informal
Formal
Don’t know
1= Externally
Don’t know
Category
Training
Training
(DO NOT
Accredited
(DO NOT
(i.e. NVQ)
READ OUT)
2= Internally
READ OUT)
Accredited
Management
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
Occupations
Sales
Occupations
Workshop
Occupations
Administrative
Occupations
Q10:
Which of the following types of training have you provided or arranged for your
employees over the past 12 months? READ OUT TRAINING CATEGORIES AND
SELECT ONE OPTION FOR EACH
Response / Category
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Induction Training
1
2
3
Health & Safety Training
1
2
3
Basic Skills Training (such as literacy and numeracy
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Management and Leadership Training
1
2
3
Supervisory Skills Training
1
2
3
Financial or Financial Compliance Training
1
2
3
Environmental Compliance Training
1
2
3
Job-Specific IT Training
1
2
3
General IT Training
1
2
3
Any other training (please specify)
1
2
3
training)
Generic Skills Training (such as communications, team
working, and customer interaction training)
Technical Skills (such as light / heavy vehicle maintenance
and repair, Fast Fit activities etc)
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 167 of 197
August 2006
Q11:
Thinking of each of the different types of training you have just outlined (Q10),
approximately what percentage of the cost do you feel has been paid for by your
organisation / business directly?
Response / Category
% paid for directly by
Don’t know (DO
the organisation /
NOT READ OUT)
business
Induction Training
3
Health & Safety Training
3
Basic Skills Training (such as
3
literacy and numeracy training)
Generic Skills Training (such as
3
communications, team working,
and customer interaction training)
Technical Skills (such as light /
3
heavy vehicle maintenance and
repair, Fast Fit activities etc)
Management and Leadership
3
Training
Supervisory Skills Training
3
Financial or Financial
3
Compliance Training
Environmental Compliance
3
Training
Q12:
Job-Specific IT Training
3
General IT Training
3
Any other training (QD5)
3
Focusing on the future, what proportion of the cost of training do you feel should be met
by yourselves, by the trainees / learners themselves, by external companies (such as a
manufacturer with whom you have franchise agreements) and by public funding bodies?
ENSURE THAT TOTAL EQUALS 100%
Response / Category
Percentage
The Employer
Trainees / Learners
External companies such as Original Equipment or Product Manufacturers
and Suppliers (OEMs)
Public Funding Bodies
Other
100%
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 168 of 197
August 2006
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
Q13:
3
Of the different types of staff training and development that you have arranged, can
you estimate the proportion that has been delivered internally by your organisation /
business?
Before you answer I would like to define what is meant by Internal and External
provision.
Internal Provision refers to all training that is delivered by your organisation /
business, either within the workplace or at designated training centres.
READ ONLY IF UNSURE: An example of internal provision would be Kwik-Fit, who
provide ‘in-house’ training on-site at their Kwik-Fit Centres and off-site at their KwikFit Training Academies.
External Provision refers to all training that is delivered by an external organisation.
This includes public sector training, such as that provided by Higher Education
establishments, and private sector training, offered by independent training providers
(ReMIT) and companies with which your organisation / business has working
relationships with but no direct affiliation too.
READ ONLY IF UNSURE: Examples of private forms of external provision include
companies who offer Product Compliment training as a result of the purchase of new
or updated equipment (i.e. a new diagnostic machine) or a car dealership which
receives sales and servicing training from multiple car manufacturers.
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: CHECK IF RESPONDENT IS CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS
MEANT BY INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROVISION. IF NECESSARY, USE
EXAMPLES.
ASK FOR EACH TYPE OF TRAINING SELECTED AT Q10.
Response / Category
Internal
Don’t Know
Provision %
Induction Training
3
Health & Safety Training
3
Basic Skills Training (such as literacy and
3
numeracy training)
Generic Skills Training (such as
Assessment of Current Provision
3
Page 169 of 197
August 2006
communications, team working, and
customer interaction training)
Technical Skills (such as light / heavy
3
vehicle maintenance and repair, Fast Fit
activities etc)
Management and Leadership Training
3
Supervisory Skills Training
3
Financial or Financial Compliance
3
Training
Q14:
Environmental Compliance Training
3
Job-Specific IT Training
3
General IT Training
3
Any other training (QD5)
3
ASK ONLY IF PROVIDED SOME FORM OF ‘INTERNAL’ TRAINING AT Q13. IF
NOT GO TO Q16
Why did you offer the training you provided internally in that manner? SELECT ALL
APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Q15:
Code
Company policy
1
To ensure quality
2
To ensure relevance
3
Cheaper than external provision
4
Training skills available internally
5
Quicker / Easier / Saves time off the job
6
Lack of availability of external provision
7
Lack of relevancy of external provision
8
Poor quality of external provision
9
Other (please specify)
10
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
11
Who delivered the internal training you provided for your employees? SELECT ALL
APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
Company Training Officer or Specialist / Dedicated Training
1
Staff
Line manager
Assessment of Current Provision
2
Page 170 of 197
August 2006
Q16:
Other experienced staff
3
Other staff
4
Other (please specify)
5
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
6
ASK ONLY IF PROVIDED SOME FORM OF ‘EXTERNAL’ TRAINING AT Q13. IF
NOT GO TO Q22
Why did you offer the training you provided externally in that manner? SELECT ALL
APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
Easily available
1
Cost of provision
2
Quality of provision
3
Size of company
4
Geographic dispersal of company
5
No option (requirement of franchise agreement, part of
6
equipment purchase package)
Q17:
To obtain external input (i.e. new ideas, experience)
7
Other (please specify)
8
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
9
Who delivered the external training you provided for your employees? SELECT ALL
APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
A ‘normal’ FE college
1
A ‘specialist’ FE college such as a COVE
2
A private training provider
3
Another company such as a Product / Service Supplier
4
or a Vehicle Manufacturer (OEM)
Other (please specify)
5
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
6
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 171 of 197
August 2006
Q18:
When you have a choice, what factors do you take into consideration when deciding
what external training providers to use? SELECT ALL APPLICABLE. PROMPT ONLY
IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
Location of the provider / Distance from place of work
1
Courses / qualifications on offer
2
Quality of equipment and facilities
3
Time requirements of the courses / time taken off the
4
job
Specialist staff
5
Cost
6
Historical usage / always used
7
Other (please specify)
8
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
9
IF ANSWERED INTERNAL AND / OR EXTERNAL PROVISION QUESTIONS GO TO Q22
Q19:
You mentioned that training has not been provided for any employees at this location
over the past twelve months, what are the main reasons for this? DO NOT READ
OUT. CODE ALL MENTIONED
Response / Category
Q20:
Code
Existing skills of employees meet our needs
1
New recruits have the skills that are needed
2
Employees learn from experience
3
Employees too busy to receive training
4
Employees too busy to give training
5
Training programme not yet in place
6
External training options not available
7
Can’t afford it / lack of finance
8
Other (please specify)
9
Don’t know
10
Are you likely to offer training to your employees in the future?
Response / Category
Code
Route
Yes
1
Ask Q21
No
2
Go to Q29
Don’t know
3
Go to Q29
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 172 of 197
August 2006
Q21:
Which of the following types of training are you likely to provide for your any of your
employees in the future? READ OUT CATEGORIES AND SELECT ONE OPTION
FOR EACH
Response / Category
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Induction Training
1
2
3
Health & Safety Training
1
2
3
Basic Skills Training (such as literacy and numeracy
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Management and Leadership Training
1
2
3
Supervisory Skills Training
1
2
3
Financial or Financial Compliance Training
1
2
3
Environmental Compliance Training
1
2
3
Job-Specific IT Training
1
2
3
General IT Training
1
2
3
Any other training (please specify)
1
2
3
training)
Generic Skills Training (such as communications, team
working, and customer interaction training)
Technical Skills (such as light / heavy vehicle maintenance
and repair, Fast Fit activities etc)
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 173 of 197
August 2006
SECTION E: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF TRAINING
(Number of Questions: 4 Min 4 Max)
“I would now like to focus on how you measure the impact of the training that your
employees have received on the performance of your company.”
Q22:
Do you formally assess the impact of the training your employees have received on
the performance of your business?
Response / Category
Q23:
Code
Route
Yes
1
Go to Q23
No
2
Go to Q24
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
3
Go to Q25
How do you assess the impact of training on the performance of your business?
PROMPT. SELECT ALL APPLICABLE
Response / Category
Code
Assessment of the performance of trainees before the
Route
1
training has taken place
Assessment of the performance of trainees after the
2
training has taken place
Assessment of the performance of trainees before and
3
Go to Q25
after the training has taken place
Q24:
Assessment of the financial turnover of the business
4
Assessment of the profit margins of the business
5
Assessment of the sales of the business
6
The retention of key staff
7
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
8
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
9
Why don’t you assess the impact of training on the performance of your business?
SELECT ALL APPLICABLE, PROMPT ONLY IF NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
Not perceived as being important
1
Insufficient money to do so
2
Insufficient time to do so
3
Insufficient staff resources to do so
4
Simply responding to legislative requirements or compliance
5
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 174 of 197
August 2006
Unable to isolate the impact of training from other factors which
6
may have contributed to results
Other (please specify)
7
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
8
IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS Q24 GO TO Q26
Q25:
What impact would you say the training you have offered to your employees has had
on…….? PROMPT WITH SCALE. SELECT ONE OPTION ONLY FOR EACH
CATEGORY
Large
Small
No
Unable to
Don’t
impact
impact
impact
say
know
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Staff retention
1
2
3
4
5
Attracting and recruiting staff
1
2
3
4
5
Response / Category
Overall Business Productivity
Productivity of employees in
Management Occupations (if
offered training at QD3)
Productivity of employees in
Sales Occupations (if offered
training at QD3)
Productivity of employees in
Workshop Occupations (if
offered training at QD3)
Productivity of employees in
Administrative Occupations (if
offered training at QD3)
Q26:
Overall, how satisfied are you with the impact that the training your employees have
received has had on the performance of your business? PROMPT WITH SCALE.
SELECT ONE OPTION ONLY
Code
Route
Very satisfied
1
Ask Q27
Fairly satisfied
2
Ask Q27
Not very satisfied
3
Ask Q28
Not at all satisfied
4
Ask Q28
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
5
Go to Q29
Response / Category
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 175 of 197
August 2006
Q27:
ASK ALL VERY SATISFIED / FAIRLY SATISFIED AT Q26
Why do you say that? DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL MENTIONED
Response / Category
Q28:
Code
Improved Business Productivity
1
Improved Financial Turnover of the Business
2
Improved Profit Margins of the Business
3
High financial ROI (Return on Investment) from training expenditure
4
Helped business meet strategic objectives
5
Gives a competitive edge to organisation
6
Improvements in quality of work / less wastage / customer returns
7
Improvements in staff motivation
8
Improvements in knowledge of employees
9
Other (specify) …………………………
10
Don't know
11
ASK ALL NOT VERY SATISFIED / NOT AT ALL SATISFIED AT Q26
Why do you say that? DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL MENTIONED
Response / Category
Code
Little or no impact on Business Productivity
1
Little or no impact on Financial Turnover
2
Little or no impact on Profit Margins
3
Low financial ROI (Return on Investment) from training expenditure
4
Direct costs of training have been too high (i.e. cost of the training)
5
Indirect costs of training have been too high (i.e. reduced productivity
6
whilst training; cost of cover for employees undergoing training; cost of
other staff meeting the administrative requirements of training etc)
Hasn’t helped business meet strategic objectives
7
Hasn’t given a competitive edge to organisation
8
Little or no improvement in quality of work / wastage / customer returns
9
Little or no improvement in staff motivation
10
Little or no improvement in relevant knowledge of employees / training
11
did not provide the skills the business needs
Other (specify) …………………………
12
Don't know
13
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 176 of 197
August 2006
SECTION F: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLED ESTABLISHMENT
(Number of Questions: 4 Min 4 Max)
“Finally, I would like to obtain some background information on your business.”
Q29:
Which of the following Automotive activities do you undertake at this location?
READ OUT ACTIVITIES AND SELECT ALL APPLICABLE
Response / Category
Q30:
Code
New vehicle sales
1
Used vehicle sales
2
Regular maintenance and repair
3
Parts suppliers, including factories, wholesalers and retailers
4
MOT testing and certification
5
Vehicle body repairs
6
Restoration services
7
Valeting services
8
Fast-fit operations
9
Other fitting operations
10
Roadside rescue and recovery services
11
Vehicle leasing and contract hire
12
Daily vehicle rental
13
Which of the following best describes your organisation’s type in the UK? READ OUT
CATEGORIES AND SELECT ONE OPTION ONLY
Response / Category
Q31:
Code
Route
Single site company or business
1
Go to Q32
Independent company with multiple sites
2
Ask Q31
Group of companies operating under different names
3
Ask Q31
ASK Q31 IF ‘MULTIPLE SITES’ OR ‘GROUP’ SELECTED AT Q30
What are the main functions of this site? SELECT ALL APPLICABLE. PROMPT IF
NECESSARY
Response / Category
Code
UK Head Office
1
Regional Head Office
2
Sales / Retail Branch
3
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 177 of 197
August 2006
Q32:
Workshop
4
Warehouse / Depot
5
Training Centre
6
Other (please specify)
7
Including yourself, can you tell me which of these category bands best represents the
number of people working at this location? READ OUT CATEGORIES AND SELECT
ONE OPTION ONLY
Response / Category
Q33:
Code
1
1
2-4
1
5-9
2
10-24
3
25-49
4
50-99
5
100+
6
Don’t know (DO NOT READ OUT)
7
Thinking of all the people who work at this location, what percentage work in the
following four occupational categories? READ OUT FOUR OCCUPATIONAL
CATEGORIES AND ADD PERCENTAGE FOR EACH. ENSURE THAT TOTAL
ADDS UP TO 100%
Response / Category
Percentage
Don’t Know
Management Occupations
3
Sales Occupations
3
Workshop Occupations
3
Administrative Occupations
3
100%
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 178 of 197
August 2006
SECTION G: FUTURE CONTACT
(Number of Questions: 2 Min 2 Max)
34.
Automotive Skills believe that capturing the views of employers within the sector is
vital to its successful development.
With this in mind, would it be possible for
Automotive Skills to approach you in the future to take part in similar research
activities?
Response / Category
35.
Code
Route
Yes
1
Go to Q35
No
2
Thank and Close
Would it be possible to obtain an email address which Automotive Skills could use to
contact you again in the future?
Response / Category
Code
Route
Yes (Capture Email Address)
1
Thank and Close
No
2
Thank and Close
Appendix 6: CoVE Focus Group Discussion Guide
Assessment of Current Provision in the Automotive Sector
Introduction
Assessment of Current Provision is the second stage of the Sector Skills Agreement process
being brokered by Automotive Skills. It essentially acts as the balance to Stage One, the
Skills Needs Review which focuses on employers. This second stage is an assessment of the
effectiveness of current workforce development activity in meeting the requirements identified
through the sectoral needs analysis phase. This will include a review of current expenditure
on all workforce development activities, examining the range, nature and employer relevance
of current public and private provision.
Crucial to this activity is understanding the type of provision available, the number of people
accessing this provision and the quality of provision available. As part of this assessment
additional work will be undertaken with providers to ascertain the take up of provision.
However, equally important is to contact providers to discuss the nature of courses available
and the funding and curriculum structures behind them.
This assessment will be representative across the four countries of the United Kingdom and
also across the 13 sub-sectors of the downstream automotive industry.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 179 of 197
August 2006
Key topics for discussion
1.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
2.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
3.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
4.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
5.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
6.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
7.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Relationship between providers and employers
How does this relationship work in practice? Who leads? Who uses what services?
Are some sub-sectors easier to engage with than others?
On what basis do you engage with employers? What drives this (eg funding)?
What kinds of training are on offer?
Profile of provision by Level of qualification – and who funds what?
Type of training available i.e. basic skills, generic skills, vs. technical qualifications
Role of apprenticeships and other vocational qualifications – what about completion rates?
Take up rates of different types of provision – length of courses?
Differences between on-site and off-site training
Availability of facilities and resources
What types of training facilities exist? Do these always match employer
expectations/requirements?
To what extent are they used by other training organisations to supply local needs?
Is location a key factor in determining participation and availability of resources? What impact
does travel time have?
What needs to be developed in the future to provide world class training opportunities?
Progression routes
To what extent are there progressive links between the different levels of qualification?
What connections exist with the Higher Education sector, if any? How much progression is
there?
What relationships exist with other providers, including schools, etc?
Curriculum design and funding of qualifications
Who is involved in designing curriculum for automotive courses?
To what extent are employers involved?
What types of training do employers fund?
What proportion of training is funded by individual employees?
Quality assurance
Which external organisations, such as ALI, are involved is assessing quality?
Are current quality assessment procedures valid and valuable to you? Or to employers?
To what extent have CoVEs developed bespoke quality assessments?
Are these recognised/used by employers?
The future of the sector
What will drive the business development model for CoVEs?
What policy and legislative changes are likely to have the biggest impact on provision and
employer needs?
How will CoVEs have developed in 5,10 years time?
What changes could be made to have the greatest impact on the funding, availability and take
up of provision in the Automotive sector?
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 180 of 197
August 2006
This is not an exhaustive list of topics. The aim of this activity is to listen to the views of the
participants and therefore the aim of the discussion guide is to provide topics for discussion
rather than a structured interview schedule.
We are happy to consult with members after the meeting by telephone or email if other
important issues emerge after the discussion has been completed.
In order to gather the detailed information required for the Stage 2 process, Ci Research will
be contacting each CoVE individually to discuss the availability of statistics and learner data.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 181 of 197
August 2006
Appendix 7: Overview of Stage 2 Methodology and Sampling
Stage 2 of the Sector Skills Agreement was constructed using information obtained from a
range of secondary and primary research activities.
Secondary Research
Secondary data for Stage 2 was sourced by both Automotive Skills and Ci Research.
Provision
Using a series of Learn Direct classification codes (LDSC codes) selected by Automotive
Skills, Ci Research sourced a database of courses serving the sector from the University for
Industry (UfI), in order to provide a snapshot of the characteristics of provision (see Section
5). However, as a database could not be provided with the LDSC codes included, courses
were manually assigned to subject areas. Similarly, qualification levels were allocated via
primary research activities; including provider website analysis and telephone enquiries.
Once the database was constructed, GIS (Geographical Information Systems) software was
utilised to produce a range of maps giving a geographical overview of the number of courses
serving the retail automotive sector in each region or nation of the UK, encompassing
analysis of both course level and subject. In order to show all qualifications on one map,
courses were coded using the England, Wales and Northern Ireland Qualification Framework.
Whilst the UfI database cannot be considered a complete list, with particular concern raised
over the level of accuracy in Scotland, it did provide the most comprehensive indication of
how provision was distributed across the UK.
Funded Learner Data
In order to enable assessment of the take-up of learning, learning demographics and
achievement, Automotive Skills sourced data from the public sector funders of Further
Education and Work Based Learning in each of the four home countries; England (from the
Learning and Skills Council (LSC)), Scotland (from Scottish Enterprise (SEn) and Highland
and Islands Enterprise (HIE)), Wales (from Education and Learning Wales (ELWa)) and
Northern Ireland (from the Department for Education and Learning (DELNI)). Additional
Further Education data for Scotland was sourced by Ci Research from the Scottish Funding
Council (SFC). Higher Education statistics for the sector were obtained by Ci Research from
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 182 of 197
August 2006
the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and the Universities and Colleges Admissions
Service (UCAS).
However, due to variations in data collection systems, the level and detail of the information
available differed. Where information gaps were identified, each funding council was
approached for additional detail, however the data was either unavailable or resources did not
permit the supply of such data. As such, the Stage 2 report represents the most up-to-date
and comprehensive overview of publicly funded learner data that was available at the time of
publication.
Private Sector Training Provision
In addition to the training supplied by the public sector through further and higher education
institutions, and work based learning providers, training is also delivered by employers in the
workplace. Therefore, as part of the assessment of current provision, data was sourced from
a range of secondary sources such as SSDA Matrix, Futureskills Scotland, the Department
for Education and Learning in Northern Ireland (DELNI and Future Skills Wales in order to
identify the incidence of this type of training in the sector.
Quality of Provision
In order to offer an assessment of the quality of training provision in each of the four home
countries, Ci Research sourced and examined assessments undertaken by the relevant
inspection bodies.
For provision in England, the available Ofsted inspection reports of providers of automotive
courses were assessed in terms of retention rates, pass rates and overall inspection grades
for Engineering and Motor Vehicle Departments. Similarly, Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI)
reports were assessed for providers of Engineering, Technology and Manufacturing work
based learning, both in terms of the overall inspection grade and in relation to the grades
awarded for leadership and management, equal opportunities and quality assurance. This
information was analysed for regional variations.
With regards to Northern Ireland, the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) reports were
assessed. However, whilst the ETI is introducing a numerical grading system, the data
accumulated was insufficient at the time this report was produced to enable any meaningful
conclusions to be drawn. As such, the overall rating was based on an assessment of the
content of the conclusion or main findings sections of the inspection reports. Whilst these
assessments were subjective they did enable an overview of the quality of provision in
Northern Ireland to be produced.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 183 of 197
August 2006
For provision in Scotland, the quality inspection reports of Further Education colleges offering
courses in Road Vehicle Engineering and/or Vehicle Maintenance/Repair (as indicated by the
Scottish Funding Council enrolment data) were assessed in terms overall college
performance. These HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIe Scotland) assessments focused on
a range of indicators, including educational leadership and direction; guidance and support;
resources and services to support the learner; staff; quality assurance; and quality
improvement. Where subject specific evaluations had also been undertaken in the broad
subject category of ‘Engineering’ these were also assessed.
For Wales, the inspection reports of HM Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales
(Estyn) were analysed, assessing overall Further Education establishment performance
against seven key evaluation questions. These questions focused on learner achievement;
the effectiveness of teaching, training and assessment; the extent to which the needs of
learners and wider community were being met; the level of care, guidance and support for
learners; the effectiveness of leadership and strategic management; the quality of evaluation
and improvement activities; and the effectiveness of resource utilisation.
Unfortunately, comparative analysis was restricted by the different inspection methodologies
and reporting approaches used in each of the four home countries and by the fact that not all
public sector training providers servicing the sector had received recent inspections.
Primary Research
Figure 75.
Primary Research Activities
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 184 of 197
August 2006
In collaboration with Automotive Skills, Ci Research designed and conducted a number of
large scale quantitative and qualitative investigations in order to support and explore the
issues behind the secondary data.
Qualitative Research
The qualitative components of the research involved focus groups and depth interviews.
Focus group activities centred on a series of six Regional Employer Workshops organised by
Automotive Skills and facilitated by Ci Research. These took place in the fourth quarter of
2005 in Thatcham (01/09), Loughborough (06/09), Bristol (08/09), Manchester (13/09),
Newcastle (14/09) and Edinburgh (23/11), with discussions focusing on key issues for
workforce development and training in the sector. An additional focus group was conducted in
November 2005 with members of the retail automotive CoVE Quality Improvement Group
(see Appendix 23 for the discussion guide) to examine key issues facing public sector
training, both in the short, medium and long term.
In addition to the focus group activity, 40 depth interviews were conducted in the first quarter
of 2006 with a group of UK employers and training providers highlighted by Automotive Skills
as being either ‘exemplar’ or highly knowledgeable. The employers included small, medium
and large scale employers, whilst the group of training providers covered both public and
private sector. Lines of enquiry followed structured discussion guides (see Appendices 20 and
21) in order to elicit detailed and comparable responses. Training provider questioning
focused on market assessment activities, funding issues, quality assurance, networking
activities, and the future of training within the sector. Employer interviews focused on the
drivers of training, priorities for upgrading skills, training plans and budgets, the delivery of
training, and return on investment assessments.
Quantitative Research
To support this qualitative information, a quantitative survey of employers operating within the
retail automotive sector was also conducted. The sampling framework for the 2006 survey of
employers in the retail automotive sector utilised the Automotive Sector Integrated Research
Database.
83
This was constructed by Simpson Carpenter Ltd. on behalf of Automotive Skills
in September 2005 and represents the most comprehensive database of employers located
within the sector. It utilises data sourced from Yellow Pages, Dun & Bradstreet, and Sewells
‘Who Owns Who’ Database (covering car dealerships) and has been constructed around the
following SIC codes:
83
Simpson Carpenter Ltd. (2005) Automotive Sector Integrated Research Database
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 185 of 197
August 2006
ƒ
5010
Sale of motor vehicles
ƒ
5020
Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles
ƒ
5030
Sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories
ƒ
5040
Sale, maintenance and repair of motorcycles, parts and accessories
ƒ
7110
Rent of automobiles
ƒ
7430
Technical testing and analysis (part only covering MOT inspection)
The database is segmented by site type, region, employee numbers and primary activity
categories.
After consultation between Ci Research and Automotive Skills, a maximum sample size of
600 interviews was agreed. This was segmented by geographic location and company size in
order to offer a representative view of the opinions and experiences of employers.
Rather than using the entire database of 70,391 sites it was determined that the survey
should focus solely on Head Office locations, excluding subsidiary, divisional and branch
operations. It was felt that this would ensure that the respondents were those who were
responsible for making decisions with regards to training and would prevent the replication of
responses from branches of the same organisation. As such, the sampling framework was
constructed around a database of 52,035 organisations.
Figure 76.
Retail Automotive Sector Head Offices
Country / Region
1-9 Employees
10-99 Employees
100+ Employees
Total
North East
1,675
222
22
1,919
North West
5,183
802
104
6,089
Yorkshire & Humber
4,012
590
93
4,695
East Midlands
3,200
547
75
3,822
West Midlands
4,427
707
96
5,230
South West
4,122
696
95
4,913
East
5,106
762
84
5,952
South East
6,661
1,128
162
7,951
London
3,225
445
66
3,736
Wales
2,318
350
42
2,710
Scotland
3,035
464
46
3,545
N Ireland
1,262
199
12
1,473
44,226
6,912
897
52,035
Total
Source: Simpson Carpenter Ltd (2005) Automotive Sector Integrated Research Database
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 186 of 197
August 2006
Within the timeframe set for the survey, a total of 599 quantitative interviews were completed
with establishments in the Automotive Skills footprint. Reflecting the characteristics of the
sector these were predominantly with organisations with between 1 and 9 employees (511
interviews). 79 interviews were completed with organisations which had between 10 and 99
employees and 9 interviews with organisations with over 100 employees. 510 of these
interviews were with employers located in the nine English regions. Of the remaining, 41 were
completed with employers in Scotland, 31 with employers in Wales, and 17 with employers in
Northern Ireland.
The quantitative questionnaire examined a wide range of issues, including training plans and
budgets, the drivers of training, training activities, and the impact of training. Responses were
weighted to reflect the actual population of the retail automotive sector.
Figure 77.
Responses to the Quantitative Survey
Country / Region
1-9 Employees
10-99 Employees
100+ Employees
Total
North East
19
3
0
22
North West
61
9
1
71
Yorkshire & Humber
46
7
1
54
East Midlands
37
6
1
44
West Midlands
51
8
0
59
South West
48
8
1
57
East
59
9
1
69
South East
76
13
2
91
London
37
5
1
43
Wales
27
4
0
31
Scotland
35
5
1
41
N Ireland
15
2
0
17
511
79
9
599
Total
Source: Simpson Carpenter Ltd (2005) Automotive Sector Integrated Research Database
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 187 of 197
August 2006
Glossary
Courses and Qualifications
Courses
When this report refers to courses, it refers to a programme of learning being carried out by
an individual training provider or college, which may or may not lead to a qualification. More
than one course available at an institution may lead to the same qualification.
Qualifications
When this report refers to qualifications, it refers to a specific type of programme of learning,
as accredited by an accreditation body such as QCA. In most cases, multiple training
providers will offer courses leading to any one qualification.
Types of Skills
Basic Skills
Basic Skills are considered to be a subset of particularly important Key Skills/Generic Skills
crucial for good performance in training, work and life in general. Official qualifications titled
‘Basic Skills’ are available. Basic Skills may also be referred to (outside Scotland) as Core
Skills, and some of the qualifications (e.g. IMI) use this title. They are usually defined as:
ƒ
Communication (including Literacy)
ƒ
Numeracy
ƒ
ICT
Core Skills
In Scotland, Core Skills are an officially assessed set of skills, considered to be essential for
employment. Core Skills are those generic skills that can help individuals improve their own
learning and performance in education and training, work and life in general. A set of official
qualifications in Core Skills are available, which form an integral part of all Modern
Apprenticeships in Scotland. Core Skills are defined as:
ƒ
Working with Others
ƒ
Communication (including Literacy)
ƒ
Numeracy
ƒ
Problem Solving
ƒ
ICT
Outside Scotland, Core Skills is an unofficial synonym for ‘Basic Skills’.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 188 of 197
August 2006
Essential Skills
Essential Skills are the most basic set of generic employability skills. Although definitions
vary, and the term may be used informally to refer to a wider set of generic skills, they are
usually defined only as literacy and numeracy. For example, the Essential Skills Support Unit
(http://www.essu.org) define it as: “The ability to read, write and speak in English/Welsh and
to use mathematics at a level necessary to function and progress at work and in society in
general.”
Generic Skills
Generic Skills is a term used by this report to refer to skills useful in the workplace which are
transferable between employers and sectors, in particular communication, problem solving
and team working.
Key Skills
Key Skills are those generic skills that can help individuals improve their own learning and
performance in education and training, work and life in general. Apart from in Scotland, they
are an officially defined and assessed set of skills, considered to be essential for employment.
A set of official Key Skills qualifications are available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
which form an integral part of apprenticeship frameworks. Although the term may be used
unofficially in Scotland, the standard Scottish qualifications are in ‘Core Skills’. Key Skills are
defined as:
ƒ
Communication (including Literacy)
ƒ
Numeracy
ƒ
ICT
ƒ
Working with Others
ƒ
Problem Solving
ƒ
Self Improvement
Life Skills
Life Skills is an informal term used by this report to refer to a set of skills relating to the ability
to work with managers and other employees in the workplace, primarily attitude, motivation,
willingness to learn and reliability.
Technical Skills
Technical Skills in this report is a term used to refer to generic or specific vocational skills
involving the use or repair of machinery or vehicles, whether these skills are taught by an
external training provider or in the workplace. This would include, for example, a course in
Vehicle Maintenance and Repair.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 189 of 197
August 2006
Types of Training Provision
External Training Provision
Provision of training by a college or other training provider separate to the organisation
employing the learner; whether that training is delivered by within the workplace or at a
designated external site.
Internal Training Provision
Training provided by employees of the company employing the learner. This may be provided
in the workplace or at an external training centre.
Formal Training Provision
For the purposes of this report, Formal Training Provision is defined as any learning activity,
whether provided externally or internally, which leads to a formally recognised qualification.
Informal Training Provision
For the purposes of this report, Informal Training Provision is defined as any learning activity,
whether provided externally or internally, which does not lead to a formally recognised
qualification.
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 190 of 197
August 2006
Abbreviations
Figure 78.
Abbreviations
Abbreviation
Full Title
ABC
Awarding Body Consortium
A Level
Advanced Level
AEAs
Advanced Extension Awards
ALI
Adult Learning Inspectorate
ALP
Association of Learning Providers
AoC
Association of Colleges
ARMS
Automotive Retail Management Standards
AS Level
Advanced Subsidiary Level
AVCE
Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education
AWM
Advantage West Midlands (RDA)
BTEC
Business and Technology Education Council
C&G
City and Guilds
CBI
Confederation of British Industries
CMI
Chartered Management Institute
CoVEs
Centres of Vocational Excellence
England
DDP
Diploma Development Partnership
England
DfES
Department for Education and Skills
England
DTI
Department of Trade and Industry
England
DWP
Department for Work and Pensions
England
E2E
Entry to Employment
England
ECU
Electronic Control Unit
EEDA
East of England Development Agency (RDA)
England
EMDA
East Midlands Development Agency (RDA)
England
FAB
Federation of Awarding Bodies
FE
Further Education
FSA
Financial Services Authority
GCE
General Certificate of Education (A Level)
GCSE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
GNVQ
General National Vocational Qualification
HE
Higher Education
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Assessment of Current Provision
UK Relevance
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England
England
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
Page 191 of 197
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England
August 2006
Abbreviation
Full Title
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
HNC
Higher National Certificate
HND
Higher National Diploma
HV
Heavy Vehicle
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
ILR
Individual Learning Record
IMI
The Institute of the Motor Industry
IT
Information Technology
JCQ
Joint Council for Qualifications
KPIs
Key Performance Indicators
LDA
London Development Agency (RDA)
LDCS
LearnDirect Classification System
LFS
Labour Force Survey
LLSC
Local Learning and Skills Council
England
LSC
Learning and Skills Council
England
LSDA
Learning and Skills Development Agency
LSN
Learning and Skills Network
LV
Light Vehicle
NAA
National Assessment Authority
NA/NR
Not Applicable / Not Recorded
NC
National Certificate
ND
National Diploma
NDPB
Non-Departmental Public Body
NESS
National Employers Skills Survey
NI
Northern Ireland
NOS
National Occupations Standards
NQF
National Qualifications Framework
NVQs
National Vocational Qualifications
NWDA
North West Development Agency (RDA)
OCR
UK Relevance
England
England
England
England
England
England
England
Oxford, Cambridge and Royal Society of Arts Exam
Board
OFSTED
Office for Standards in Education
England
ONE
One North East (RDA)
England
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency
QCA
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
QIA
Quality Improvement Agency
England
RDA
Regional Development Agency
England
RSP
Regional Skills Partnership
England
SD
Specialised Diploma
England
SEEDA
South East England Development Agency (RDA)
England
SIC
Standard Industry Classification
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 192 of 197
England Northern Ireland
August 2006
Abbreviation
Full Title
SMEs
Small and Medium Enterprises
SNA
Skills Needs Assessment
SSA
Sector Skills Agreement
SSCs
Sector Skills Councils
SSDA
Sector Skills Development Agency
SWDA
South West Development Agency (RDA)
TUC
Trades Unions Council
UCAS
Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
UfI
University for Industry
ULF
Union Learning Fund
UK
United Kingdom
VCE
Vocational Certificate of Education
VGCSE
Vocational General Certificate of Education
VRQs
Vocationally Related Qualifications
WBL
Work Based Learning
WDP
Workforce Development Plan
YF
Yorkshire Forward (RDA)
Assessment of Current Provision
UK Relevance
England
England
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England Wales, Northern
Ireland
England
Page 193 of 197
August 2006
Bibliography
Adult Learning Inspectorate (2006) Work Based Learning Inspection Reports (2001-2005)
Apprenticeships (website, 08/2006) Funding and Apprenticeship Policy,
http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/
Apprenticeships (website, 08/2006) How it Works, http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/
Association of Learning Providers (website, 09/2006) About Us, http://www.learningproviders.org.uk/
Automotive Retail Management StandardsTM (ARMS) (website, 04/2006) Automotive Retail
TM
Management Standards
http://www.armsprofessional.org.uk/content/section/5/104/
Automotive Skills (website, 09/2006) UK Representation: England, http://www.automotiveskills.org.uk/auto/control/RegionalEngland
Automotive Skills / National Institute of Social and Economic Research, London
Institute of Career Guidance (website, 08/2006) Questions Asked, http://www.icg-uk.org/page290.html
Automotive Skills (website, 04/2006) Standards and Qualifications: National Occupational
Standards, http://www.automotive-skills.org.uk/auto/control/standards
Automotive Skills (website, 04/2006) Standards and Qualifications: Apprenticeships,
http://www.automotiveskills.org.uk/auto/control/StandardsModApprenticeship_Intro_Menu
Association of Colleges (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://www.aoc.co.uk/
BBC (website, 08/2006) Schools in Wales FAQ http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/schoolgate/yourquestions/
CBI (2006) Further Skills for Success
City and Guilds (website, 07/2006) Automotive Sector Qualifications, http://www.city-andguilds.co.uk/
Department for Employment and Learning (2006) Further Education Statistical Record 2003/04,
automotive sector data provided by DELNI for this report
DfES (2002) Education and Skills: Delivering Results: A Strategy to 2006
DfES (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners
Higher Education Funding Council for England (website, 08/2006) About Us,
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/aboutus/ history/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 194 of 197
August 2006
ELWa (website, 08/2006) HNDs & HNCs, http://www.elwa.ac.uk/elwaweb/elwa.aspx?pageid=520
FE News (website, 09/2006) ALP’s Graham Hoyle responds to Ofsted merger proposal,
http://www.fenews.co.uk/newsview.asp?n=619
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2006) Enrolment Statistics 2002/03, automotive sector data
provided by HESA for this report
HM Government (2003) White Paper: The Future of Higher Education
HM Government (2005) White Paper: 14-19 Education and Skills
HM Government (2005) White Paper: Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work
Institute of Career Guidance (website, 08/2006) Questions Asked, http://www.icg-uk.org/page290.html
JobCentre Plus (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Aboutus/index.html
Learning and Skills Network (website, 08/2006) Home Page, http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/
Learning and Skills Council (website, 07/2006) About the LSC,
http://www.lsc.gov.uk/National/Corporate/ AbouttheLSC/PurposeandStructure/default.htm
Learning and Skills Council (2006) Individual Learning Record 2003/04, automotive sector data
provided by the LSC for this report
Learning and Skills Council (2004) National Employers’ Skills Survey (NESS) 2004: Main Report
Learning and Skills Council (2005) Agenda for Change: The Prospectus
Mason O. and Osborne M. (2004) Skill and Training Requirements in the Vehicle Maintenance
Industry in Greater Manchester: Report for Local FE Providers and Training Colleges, Sector
Skills
National Assessment Agency (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://naa.org.uk/about_us.html
National Assessment Agency (website, 07/2006) Qualifications Overview,
http://naa.org.uk/examsoffice/help/ index_qualifications_overview.html
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (2005) Overview of the Education System in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland
National Statistics (2004) National Statistics Population Estimates 2004
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 195 of 197
August 2006
North West Development Agency (NWDA) (website, 09/2006) Skills and Education,
http://www.nwda.co.uk/ RelatedContent.aspx?area=263
Motorsport Industry Association (2003) Motorsport Valley Workforce Development Plan
Ofsted (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/
Ofsted (2006) FE College Inspection Reports (2002-2006)
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (website, 08/2006) About Us,
http://www.qca.org.uk/7.html
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (website, 08/2006) A Levels, http://www.qca.org.uk/1419/ qualifications/index_a-levels.htm
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (website, 08/2006) AEAs, http://www.qca.org.uk/14-19/
qualifications/index_aeas.htm
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (website, 08/2006) Specialised Diplomas
http://www.qca.org.uk/17046.html
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (website, 08/2006) VCE A Levels, http://www.qca.org.uk/
10379.html
Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) (website, 09/2006) Responsibilities, http://www.qia.org.uk/
aboutus/responsibilities.html
Sector Skills Development Agency / Automotive Skills (2004) Key Findings from the National
Employer Skills Survey 2003: Automotive Skills
Sector Skills Development Agency (website, 04/2006) SSDA Sector Skills Matrix,
http://www.ssdamatrix.org.uk/
Skills for Business (2005) Raising Sector Skills Levels: How responsive is local training supply?
UK National Reference Point for Vocational Qualifications (website, 08/2006) Vocational
Qualifications in the UK, http://www.uknrp.org.uk/Pages/UK_Voc_Quals/National_Qualifications.asp
Trade Unions Congress (2006) Response to ‘Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life
Chances’ White Paper
UCAS (website, 08/2006) Course Database 2006/07, http://search.ucas.co.uk/
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 196 of 197
August 2006
UnionLearn (website, 08/2006) About Us, http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/
University for Industry (2006) Learndirect Course Database, automotive sector data provided by UfI for
this report
Wallace M. / Automotive Skills (2003) Review of Patterns of Provision: Annual Benchmarks 2002-03
Wikipedia (website, 08/2006) Connexions Agency (UK),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexions_agency
Assessment of Current Provision
Page 197 of 197
August 2006