A review of land-based and aquaculture Modern Apprenticeships: delivery and resources

Review of Land-based and Aquaculture Modern Apprenticeships: Delivery and Resources

Prepared for Lantra (Scotland)

by SurveyZone, March 2020

Lantra’s work in Scotland is supported by the Scottish Government’s Agriculture, Food and Rural Communities Directorate (Agriculture and Rural Development Division)

1

Please note the following research, including the consultation and reporting, was completed prior to the direct impact of COVID-19 in Scotland. It is hence being shared at a time of great uncertainty and change and some of it might seem ‘out of phase’ with current priorities.

We did consider delaying its circulation, but the ongoing COVID-19 ‘Recovery and Restart’ initiatives have encouraged us to proceed with its distribution in order to help inform ‘next practice’.

For example, now is an ideal time to look again at assessment, as well as address some of the gaps in knowledge and understanding of how apprenticeships are created and administered which this research has highlighted. By doing so, and by working in partnership with all stakeholders, we can ensure that the ‘restart’ to training delivery and the development of skills within these key rural sectors is even better than before.

Lantra acknowledges that restrictions have accelerated the introduction and development of new and innovative ways of working, which has (and will continue to have) a follow-on impact on the Findings, the Summary and on Recommendations. For example, the requirement for a rapid move to online learning has led to significant developments in how signatures are gathered, the delivery of on-line assessments and e-portfolios since publication.

Hence, although this research was undertaken by an independent researcher, we have included boxes such as this one throughout the text to provide either an update on recent developments within this area, or to contemporise the identified challenge.

Please keep in mind that where they appear, they are the views of Lantra, and not the independent researcher.

2

Table of contents 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Review of Land-based and Aquaculture Modern Apprenticeships: Delivery and Resources ………………………………………………………

4

1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….

4

1.2 Scope ……………………………………………………………………...

1.3 Methodology ……………………………………………………………...

Findings …………………………………….………………………................

4 5 6

2.1 MA framework understanding .………………………………………...

2.2 Identified MA framework issues ……………………………………….

6 7

2.3 Industry MA perception and enhancements ………………………….

9

MA Candidate Profile …………………………………………………….…..

10

3.1 General rural sector recruitment profiles ……………………………...

3.2 MA candidate distribution by sector, provider region and postcode area ……………………………………………………………………….

10 11

3.3 Implications of rural remoteness on recruitment .…………………….

12

MA Delivery Models ………………………………………………………….

13

4.1 Factors influencing MA delivery models ……………………………...

4.2 Delivery models identified .…………………………………………….

13 13

4.3 Employer and provider delivery support .…………………………….

16

4.4 Total MA attendance days and award completion period .…………

17

4.5 ‘Off the job delivery’ – approaches and resources .………………...

4.6 Delivery development and seasonality .……………………………...

17 19

MA Assessment Approach ..………………………………………………..

20

5.1 Key assessment model constraints .………………………………….

5.2 Use of on-line assessments and e-portfolios ………………………..

22 23

Administrative and Other Related Issues .………………………………..

24

6.1 SDS administration requirements .……………………………………

24

6.2 An alternative approach ……………………………………………….

6.3 MA funding and contribution rates…………………………………….

25 26

Summary ……………………………………………………………………..

Summary of Key Benchmarked Differences between Engineering and Rural MAs .……………………………………………………………………

Recommendations .………………………………………………………….

Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………….

28

Appendix 1 .…………………………………………………………………..

33

Appendix 2 .…………………………………………………………………..

34

Appendix 3 .…………………………………………………………………..

35

Appendix 4 .…………………………………………………………………..

36

3

30 31 32

1. Review of Land-based and Aquaculture Modern Apprenticeships: Delivery and Resources 1.1 Introduction Lantra (Scotland) commissioned this research project to help develop their understanding of the resource requirements and associated challenges facing training providers delivering land-based and aquaculture Modern Apprenticeships (MAs) in Scotland. It is hoped that this evidence base will, ultimately, help Lantra provide and influence effective support and work towards effective solutions for those providers. It has been produced in partnership with and for, those working to promote uptake and quality in MA delivery in rural Scotland.

The overarching objective of the research project was to establish and benchmark realistic provider time and resource commitments for effective MA delivery in the sector, considering factors such as participation numbers, candidate support, mode of delivery, remoteness and technical training requirements. All providers with registered Lantra MA candidates in 2019, within the scope of this project, were approached and contributed to the body of evidence presented within this report.

The report also draws on evidence of workplace assessor use from the Lantra study ‘Workplace Assessor Provision (March 2018)’.

The report identifies the key areas which impact significantly on the delivery of the selected Rural MAs and benchmarks these against a mainstream MA in Engineering, delivered by some of the same providers. Although engineering content is included within several of the Rural MAs, the associated delivery models, as well as the level of acceptance of the apprenticeship model is very different between the two sectors.

While land-based engineering aligns closely with some Rural MAs, it should be noted that other engineering apprenticeships are delivered over an extended timeframe (typically 4 years), tend to be site based, and with an expectation of a significant financial contribution from employers. However, as a framework that many providers are familiar with, which also requires the accumulation of technical skills over time and for which a wide range of expensive equipment is essential, it was used as a reference benchmark through the research

1.2 Scope The study has focused on providers who are delivering MAs at Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework (SCQF) levels 5, 6, or 7 in the industry sectors of: aquaculture, agriculture, trees and timber, land-based engineering and rural skills. Within this report these 5 MAs will be referred to as Rural MAs where aspects of delivery are common, but will identify individual industry sectors where specific issues or differences are more significant.

Two providers also delivered the MA in Engineering at SCQF level 5 and 6 awarded by the relevant Sector Skills Council, the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance (Semta, now ‘Enginuity’). The Rural MAs have been benchmarked against these award models to identify any key delivery and operational differences impacting upon the Rural MA provider. The list of relevant MA framework documents for each industry sector is detailed in Appendix 1.

4

The report makes no qualitative or evaluative judgements on different delivery models found across the different centres or provider campuses. It merely attempts to show what is currently provided and the common and the specific challenges faced by different industry sector providers where they are relevant. Data supplied by providers was generally indicative to get a realistic perspective of scale or distribution but was not in any way a detailed audit of their provision.

The consultation process engaged with ‘front line’, or apprentice-facing, provider delivery staff. It is acknowledged that not all staff were actively engaged in the development and review of MA frameworks. However, where they have made particular reference to such work, their comments have been included in the narrative, particularly when it was clear that it may have potential value to inform recommended actions.

To avoid any confusion, the following definition and clarification of ‘off-the-job training’ has been adopted within this report, as defined in all Lantra MA framework documents for Scotland.

‘Time for learning activities away from normal work duties. Off-the-job training needs to: • Be planned, reviewed and evaluated jointly between the apprentice and a tutor, teacher, mentor or manager.

• Be delivered during contracted working hours.

• Be delivered through one or more of the following methods: individual and group teaching, e-learning, distance learning, coaching, mentoring, feedback and assessment, collaborative/networked learning with peers, guided study and induction.

• Lead to the achievement of the SVQ or other specified awards.’

1.3 Methodology A total of 7 training providers were identified in Scotland who were delivering MAs within the report scope. These included University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) and SRUC who have different college and campus sites, 1 managing agent (with subcontracted delivery) and 1 private provider out-with the ‘college’ sector. Additional background information was obtained from 1 key Scotland-wide trees and timber employer, who now sub-contract all their MA ‘off-the-job training’. In total 9 different campus/training locations were visited across Scotland. Face-to-face meetings were undertaken with 12 different delivery teams across the different sites covering each of the different Rural MAs delivered at that site, including engineering where it was offered.

Two additional telephone interviews were undertaken with MA Engineering providers.

Meetings took place during January and February 2020 and involved MA administrative and key delivery staff1, with contributions from each provider and industry sector. The 1

It should be noted that some staff were not always involved in the creation and review of the frameworks they deliver

5

duration of meetings varied between 1 to 3.5 hours with the average being 2.5 hours.

Follow up calls and emails were made to clarify any details as necessary.

The face-to-face group meetings generally involved 2-3 staff and discussions were based around the following general MA themes: • Frameworks • Candidate profiles • Delivery models • Assessment models • Administrative and other related resource issues A range of structured questions were explored within each area to ensure consistency of approach and initiate structured dialogue. A few groups had some clear agenda items they wished to explore at an early stage and others raised relevant issues as the meeting progressed. Staff at all meetings were very engaging and willing to freely express their considered views.

The report is based on evidence provided at these meeting, notes taken, and some follow up clarifications and data supplied.

2. Findings 2.1 MA framework understanding The MA framework documents are essentially the key reference drivers for all MA provider delivery activity and during discussions were at times referenced alongside the perceived challenges experienced by providers. Their cyclical review and currency for what can be 4-6 years often has many unseen implications for Rural MA providers.

Key aspects of MA framework reviews which may have an impact on provider resources, delivery and funding contributions include: • Any change in the minimum ‘off the job training’ hours or anticipated MA completion time, may affect the providers delivery model and its sustainability • Any additional learning and assessment requirements must be clearly specified as this may influence future SDS funding contributions • Any change in the number of mandatory or optional unit grouping to attain the SVQ qualification may affect the providers delivery model and candidate completion time • Any change to the title and contents of mandatory or optional units and their grouping to attain the SVQ qualification can influence the suitability of the award for some candidates and employers • The number of new or revised SVQ units, which delivery staff must take time to develop teaching and assessment materials for, has a cost implication for providers • Increased optional or specialist SVQ units does not mean a viable candidate uptake. Employers with specialist enterprises may expect more optional routes to be offered by the provider with resulting staff and resource implications

6

• The need to separately certify any core skills units can increase the workload of the provider. It can often mean the candidate attending additional specific taught session just to meet the core skills assessment requirements • Increasing the number and range of mandatory industry enhancements does not mean the provider can offer the full range to their candidates and employers. The cost of many industry enhancements can be high and out with the sustainable funding available to providers Across the 12 different Rural MA delivery teams interviewed, only 6 teams currently have staff with any previous experience of Lantra MA framework reviews. This highlights the importance of increasing awareness and understanding among delivery staff within providers, as it has the potential to impact on the review process.

Discussions identified some areas where staff were unclear how MA frameworks had been finalised and the processes involved.

Interviewees were unclear on some of the following areas: • core skills mapping and the process involved • appreciation of what ‘off the job training’ hours can actually include • the SCQF credit rating of units and how this is calculated • how the ‘off-the-job training’ hours are determined and the associated notional learning time for an SVQ unit • the revision or development of new units where there is an identified industry need (within the review timescale) • implications that changes to the above might possibly have on delivery resources or funding

With increased pressure on the campus resource due to social distancing as well as increased restrictions on travel, an increased awareness of what ‘off the job but on site’ hours can include is important.

In addition, there may be more of a need to review unit content.

2.2 Identified MA framework issues Acknowledging limited direct engagement in the process among some consultees, a number of common points across all scoped MA frameworks have emerged from provider discussions and are summarised below: • The review of some frameworks by Lantra are seen by providers involved as rushed, due to the tight time constraints in which they have to operate set by SDS/regulatory bodies • Little flexibility seems to exist to alter unit content or write new and more appropriate units to meet industry needs more fully. This is linked to the ‘National Occupational Standards’ (NOS) which form the SVQ units (which for the Rural MAs in Scotland are then accredited by SQA). Units are more easily added or removed than altered, as changing the content of the units falls into the review of National Occupational Standards, not the MA review which are separate processes, and which are normally sequential • Most providers did not fully appreciate that the mapping of core skills was a Lantra activity undertaken post-review meeting.

7

• Most providers were surprised to see final published MA framework documents requiring the separate certification of core skills in their frameworks in recent reviews. Eight out of the 10 frameworks required 1-2 extra core skills units to be separately certified. Of the frameworks reviewed, only land-based engineering and engineering had all core skills fully embedded in the SVQ award within the MA • There was a feeling that mandatory units could be altered to ensure all core skills were embedded within each of the industry MAs where they are not currently.

Most subject specialists interviewed were able to give clear examples of where missing core skills are actually delivered in the workplace and ‘off-the-job’. It was felt that new/amended mandatory units could more accurately reflect the development of core skills in IT and numeracy. However, it was fully recognised that such unit changes take time and appear to be out with most review timelines and budgets. There is perhaps a development opportunity to involve more of those directly involved in delivery to understand the core skill mapping process • Most providers felt the time and additional cost required to fully identify any missing (certified) candidate core skills and then deliver the core skills was disproportionate for many rural candidates. The main reasons cited for this are: o often less engaged candidates leaving school with a weak core skills profile (though there is acknowledgment that candidates need the opportunity to develop in this area) o the need to bring what are often small numbers of candidates into a centre separately from a distance, with resulting increased organisational, travel and accommodation costs, as well as the associated increase in time candidates spend out with the workplace o issue of out-of-context delivery, often with the need to combine classes.

This was primarily raised as an issue within agriculture, trees and timber and, to a lesser extent, aquaculture • The MA review process is perceived as time-consuming and is one that some providers cannot devote the level of time and staff resource which they would ideally like • Some interviewees had undertaken SCQF Credit Rating and Levelling of SVQ units previously for Lantra but felt the link with the MA framework notional learning hours and ‘off the job training hours’ was unclear. It was noted that the current published 2014 Agriculture MA framework did not specify any ‘off-the-job training hours’ or ‘time to complete’. It is unclear if this influenced the later reduction in agriculture MA support funding. Further supplementary discussions by phone with SQA Accreditation and Lantra Standards and Frameworks confirmed there was no requirement for ‘off-the-job training hours’ or months to complete to be included within the framework documents. However, this has now changed and there is a correlated basis for the estimated calculation of the MA framework ‘off-the-job training hours’ and ‘time to complete’. The basis for this is not well understood by the providers, and all stakeholders would benefit from some clarification within MA framework documents and prior to future MA review meetings At the time of writing this report, the 2014 Agriculture MA framework was nearing the end of its review process. It is understood that the 2020 framework will incorporate ‘off-the-job training’ hours and ‘time to complete’ for the first time.

8

• Only 2 providers who have been involved in current or previous reviews had any appreciation of the significance the published MA framework document might have on any related Skills Development Scotland (SDS) funding contribution rates • With the exception of the issues raised above, the Lantra MA framework review process was viewed by most providers (who had been involved at least once), as representative of candidate, industry and provider needs and a balanced approach, with acceptable compromises.

It was noted that the MA framework documents in agriculture, aquaculture, rural skills and, to a lesser extent, trees and timber do not mention or recognise the range of production and ‘seasonality’ constraints which may impact on the delivery time for these MAs. This is a significant delivery issue for all providers in these areas and is one that should be recognised and clarified within the Rural MA framework documents. The SDS Framework Template (2014) may not ask for this commentary but it could be included within the consultation feedback where appropriate.

2.3 Industry MA perception and enhancements Rural MA providers recognise that most of their industries do not consider the MA to be an employment requirement. It is not linked to progression within the sector, nor it is felt to be essential before a candidate can ‘do the job’. The exception to this is land-based engineering where, as for engineering, there is a long-established tradition of ‘apprenticeships’ and engaged industry support. The first MA in Agriculture (in Scotland) was not until 1995, but apprenticeships in engineering have been available as an industry norm since the early 1900s.

Differing levels of industry engagement with MAs is recognised as a challenge by providers. The need to effectively engage with rural businesses, providing real employment opportunities in remote areas, is seen as a key driver by all Rural MA providers. Rural employers have adopted a very pragmatic approach to training in general and are sensitive to any added business costs. Most providers indicating clearly that many employers value the certification of the MA industry enhancements over the intrinsic value of the wider MA content, and would like more funded legislative certificate and short courses for their candidates.

Industry enhancements are mandatory within Rural MA frameworks but only one provider undertakes and funds more than the basic minimum. This is due to: o the cost of many such external tests (e.g. PA1 pesticide training approx. £200) o the administrative time to organise for very small groups o the seasonality of many such courses o the logistical / time to travel and accommodation arrangements for candidates in the islands and remote areas Two training providers do not pay for or arrange any enhancements and leave it to the employer. One provider delivers some of these commercial courses to their employers and gains some integrated benefits which are discussed later.

Some of the larger aquaculture and trees and timber employers offer many more industry enhancements than that required in the MA. The additional enhancements are viewed by the employers as “what they need to do the job” and are funded by them.

9

3. MA Candidate Profile 3.1 General rural sector recruitment profiles The recruited candidate profile for most Rural MA programmes is under 25. This is fully attributed by providers to the supported funding model and guaranteed age bands. The engineering candidate profile is similarly under 25.

The exceptions are aquaculture and, to a much lesser extent, trees and timber and agriculture, where more candidates are over 25. Candidates generally enter these industries because they are local to the rural employment opportunities that exist in many of the more remote and inaccessible regions of Scotland.

With current models predicting that the young are most likely to be impacted by unemployment in the reset and recovery phase of COVID-19, it is likely that the under 25s will remain a funding priority.

Employers, particularly within aquaculture, have found local employees who can be trained to do the job and are willing to undertake the MA as part of their training opportunities. However, providers in this sector feel they are disadvantaged due to the over 25 age barrier funding restriction, which significantly impacts upon their delivery model and future recruitment opportunities. Providers are now questioning their ability to accept the increasing demand from industry and local employees who are mostly over 25, due to delivery costs and viability concerns.

Table 1 illustrates the indicative distribution of providers candidates by subject and postcode area (see Appendix 2 – Postcode Area map). It clearly shows that providers in different regions and subject areas draw their MA candidates both locally and nationally.

Both aquaculture providers, 1 agriculture, 1 trees and timber and 1 land-based engineering provider, drawing the majority of their candidates from further afield than their local postcode areas and embracing a national remit.

The majority of other providers focus on areas closer to one campus or their main delivery base. Providers noted the return travel time to a provider’s MA delivery location may exceed 3 hours within the same postcode e.g. Dumfries and Galloway (DG), Stranraer to SRUC campus in Parkgate. Candidate and provider accommodation and related travel costs are significantly increased for island and more remote rural locations across Scotland.

10

3.2 MA candidate distribution by sector, provider region and postcode area Table 1. MA candidate distribution by sector, provider region and postcode area Candidate distribution by postcode area only Sector Provider Number of Postcode area Candidate total region candidates Agriculture Orkney 1 SE 16 15 KW Borders 14 EH, TD 15 1 KY Dumfries 18 DG 20 2 KA Lothians 3+2 IV, PH 8 PA 36 9+3+2+1 EH, ML, KA, TD Aquaculture Shetland 40 + 30 ZE, KW 3 + 3 + 15 HS, IV, PH 107 7+2 PA, AB Inverness 18 IV 15 PA 55 17 + 5 PH, HS Trees and Timber Inverness 5 IV 10 2+3 PH, AB Dumfries 4+1 KY, ML 11 6 DG Rural Skills Fife 3+3 IV, KY 9 1+1+1 DD, DG, PA Land-based Engineering Lothians 1+3+3+5 ZE, KW, IV, AB 5+3+4 PH, PA, FK 71 4 + 3 + 10 + 3 KA, ML, EH, TD Dumfries 20 DG,KA 20 Total number of Rural MA candidates

370

Engineering Inverness Shetland

150 50

KW, IV, HS, PH, AB ZE

Total number of Engineering MA candidates

150 50 200

The snapshot of indicative candidate numbers and locations demonstrates the scale of regional activity and informs the course viability issues raised by providers later in the report. It is worthy of note that the 2 MA Engineering providers shown have 200 candidates, with the majority relatively close to their providers. This compares to 11 Rural MA providers with 370 candidates dispersed throughout almost all the postcode areas in Scotland. Inverness College UHI do have over 40% of their engineering 11

candidates more than 50 miles from their campus, which reflects the rurality of their wider catchment area. Two other engineering providers, contacted by phone, indicated that the vast majority of their candidates are ‘local’ and that was the norm for most other engineering providers.

Most providers indicated that their Rural MA candidate employers generally had only 1 apprentice employed at 1 location or site. Some of the larger employers within aquaculture and trees and timber may have other apprentices but not at geographically close locations (e.g. 1 shore-based but cages in 3 different sea lochs). Land-based engineering and engineering were the exception to this, with 2-4 apprentices often based at 1 workshop location.

It is against this demonstrably wide and diverse rural catchment distribution that many providers must deliver their MA programmes. The logistical issues and different delivery approaches adopted by providers to undertake this training, are detailed within the following sections of this report.

3.3 Implications of rural remoteness on recruitment Providers reflected on many occasions that the viability of some of their MA provision is very dependent upon adequate funding and balanced across the whole age profile of their recruited candidates.

The ‘guarantee group’ of higher funded MA candidate places are generally filled first, but selection by all providers must meet Lantra, SDS and equal opportunities legislative criteria. Due to the distances involved many rural candidates are required by some providers to travel for any ‘off-the-job training’ requiring college attendance. In such cases, travel and accommodation must be arranged by the providers and is an additional staff and financial resource requirement not faced by most MA Engineering providers.

Providers stated that not all candidates can drive cars or have access to private transport. Candidates can have very limited access to any reliable and regular rural public transport network in many of the areas they are employed in. Some provider delivery models have been developed to reduce the need for candidate travel away from the workplace.

There is no evidence to suggest any provider is restricting any candidate’s access to an MA training opportunity based on the candidate’s location. However, it is evident that providers with a wider national catchment do regularly review the viability and sustainability of these programmes. Delivery models are adapted, as costs rise, candidate numbers vary, and support levels are reduced. Several providers indicated there is operational need to at least ‘break even’.

12

4. MA Delivery Models 4.1 Factors influencing MA delivery models It was evident from provider discussions that their MA delivery models have evolved over time to meet the changing needs, priorities, recruitment patterns and funding drivers affecting the different industry sectors they serve.

There are a number of reasons cited which affect delivery model variations across and within the same industry sector, and across different campuses. These include: o MA demand from employers and candidates (local and national) o Provider’s recruitment strategy and possible campus variations to meet a local or a national industry and employer demand o Geographic spread of candidates and delivery logistics – travel/visits/assessment observations o Previous experience of delivering the MA and availability of teaching/learning resources for delivery o Provider staff capacity to develop/deliver/monitor the MA and assess the recruited candidates. There have been significant staffing changes across most providers with re-structuring and portfolio reviews. This has influenced MA delivery model trends and introduced a more time/cost saving/efficiency approach o The provider’s capacity to deliver the wide range of MA options, or very specialist units, within some MA frameworks, is restrictive and most cannot accommodate the range. This has forced most providers to make some unit delivery compromises with their employers o Some legacy delivery models have been ‘inherited’ by new delivery staff and providers felt there was no current need to change and stated, “it works for us” o Candidate age and funding profile and therefore ‘viability’ of their delivery model 4.2 Delivery models identified Table 2 is a broad summary of the different delivery models across the Rural MAs and engineering. Across the 5 Rural MAs,12 different delivery models were identified.

Agriculture providers offer 5 different delivery model options across Scotland. Both engineering delivery providers offer broadly the same delivery model.

Further discussion with 2 other engineering providers confirmed that the engineering sector has adopted a common delivery model across the different engineering pathways. These vary a little depending upon the routes taken but are widely recognised and supported by industry and Semta.

13

Table 2. Provider delivery models by sector and award level Delivery Model (* = Distance Learning) Provider and SCQF ‘Off-the-job’ college Employer/ Total MA Campus level attendance Provider attendance supported days days - NO attendance Days/Month Blocks Days Agriculture Orkney - UHI 5 2 8 16 Orkney - UHI 6 2 18 36 Borders 5 1 14 28 Borders 6 1 14 28 Barony - SRUC 5 5 5 25 Barony - SRUC 6 5 5 25 Oatridge - SRUC 5 5 1 2 estimated* 5 Oatridge - SRUC 6 5 1 3 estimated* 5 Train Shetland 5 “@ Barony” Aquaculture NAFC 5 0 0 2 estimated* 0 NAFC 7 0 0 3 estimated* 0 Inverness - UHI 5 0 0 2 estimated* 0 Inverness - UHI 7 0 0 3 estimated* 0 Trees and Timber Inverness - UHI 5 20 3 Employer -15 60 Inverness - UHI 5 1 1 2 estimated 1 Barony - SRUC 5 2 12 Employer -15 24 Barony - SRUC 5 1 15 2 estimated 15 Barony - SRUC 6 1 12 Employer 15 12 Rural Skills RSS 5 0 0 Employer 0 20 estimated RSS 6 0 0 Employer 0 20 estimated Land-based Engineering Oatridge - SRUC 5 15 6 90 Oatridge - SRUC 6 10 4 40 Barony - SRUC 5 10 9 F/T 90 Barony - SRUC 6 15 3 45 Engineering Inverness - UHI 5 10 8.5 F/T 85 Inverness - UHI 6 1 22 22 NAFC 5 10 8.5 F/T 85 NAFC 6 1 27 27

Average MA completion months

12 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 18 18 12 18 12 15 12 12 12

24 18 12 12 12 30 12 36

The main ‘off-the-job training’ delivery models adopted by providers for the Rural MAs and Engineering can be summarised as: o Day release for 1-2 days per month over 8-12 months

14

o Day release for 1 day per month over 22-27 months - (Engineering SCQF level 6 only) o Block release for 5 days per week over 1-5 months o Block release for 5 days per week for 3 weeks over 4-6 blocks o Full time (F/T) over 1 academic year (8-9 months) o Distance learning with a 1-week college induction period o Distance learning with no college attendance Although in theory this does not have to involve travelling to college, as in the case of Distance Learning. It can include training that happens ‘in the workplace’ (such as a quiet workspace or on the farm) but with an external provider.

Only 1 provider (SRUC, at 2 campuses) offers any block release provision in agriculture (Barony) and land-based engineering (Oatridge). All other providers require candidates to travel on a daily basis for any required attendance, attend on a full-time basis or undertake a distance learning approach.

As noted earlier in the report, across all providers there is an increased focus in online support and how to engage, support and assess students virtually.

The range of delivery models, across the different industries, does enable MA candidates, irrespective of their location, to have the opportunity to undertake an MA with at least 1 provider, at 1 campus. As providers review and possibly change delivery models there can be unintended consequences for managing agents, employers and candidates. An island managing agent indicated “no block release provision (with a subcontracted training provider) would mean no MA Agriculture or Land-based Engineering candidates on this island”. This was a simple example of the fragility of provision in more remote areas and of the impracticality of sending candidates on some provider delivery model options.

The re-structuring of Forestry Commission Scotland and formation of two new Scottish Government agencies in 2019 has significantly influenced the delivery models of MAs in Trees and Timber. With the newly formed Forestry and Land Scotland (F&LS) passing over all MA delivery to sector providers, who had not previously delivered these awards.

Both new providers were required to negotiate and develop provision with regional F&LS areas in a very short timescale. This is a good example of providers reacting to an employer-led demand but with little lead time to collaborate in the development and sharing of delivery materials or approach. The model of delivery within this sector is still evolving but with no real recognition of the time and resources which must be deployed to make it happen, out with the provider’s in-house resources.

Only 4 out of the 12 Rural MA delivering provider sites have very little ‘off-the-job’ college attendance time. The delivery models implemented by both aquaculture and rural skills providers have no formal ‘off-the-job’ college or centre attendance. The delivery is a supported distance learning programme model. One agriculture provider at 1 campus (possibly 2 in the future), delivers 5 days in college followed by a similar supported peripatetic distance learning model. This model of delivery has high initial material development and recurring update time and costs. These are normally absorbed by the provider fully with the longer-term view of reducing MA candidate college or centre attendance and related delivery time/costs. This model is generally

15

popular with some rural employers who see less ‘off-the-job training’ taking place away from the workplace environment and greater opportunities for flexibility.

Not all providers offering a distance learning model were able to quantify how the minimum ‘off-the-job training’ MA framework hours were fully delivered.

This was assumed to be a combination of assessor/support visits and MA enhancement courses + telephone support time (distance learning) + employer sponsored short courses + ‘in-house training’.

As the need for a more flexible approach to off the job training is required, increased awareness of rules and regulations around this area would clearly be beneficial, as well as examples of what this could ‘look like’ in practice.

4.3 Employer and provider delivery support In Table 2, the column ‘Employer/Provider supported days NO attendance’ identifies a few sectors where employers provided time or additional support in the working week for their MA candidates. This was evident within Forestry and Land Scotland (F&LS), Rural Skills and Engineering employers, where there is up to 3 hours per week of ‘protected time’ allocated to candidates. Within most other delivery sectors, providers did not monitor or have a ‘feel’ for the time an employer may or may not give to supporting candidates in any ‘off-the-job training’, directly related to completion of distance learning assignments or MA evidence gathering/portfolio building. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, depending upon the weekly work demands some time may be given, but it was broadly felt that this would be unplanned, and inconsistent across most employers.

The level of provider support given to the ‘average’ candidate only undertaking distance learning was difficult for most providers to quantify. This was a combination of support visits and often unrecorded telephone + email support time. An estimate of this is provided in Table 2. However, providers felt they would ‘know’ when candidates were failing to progress within this model. Two providers indicated that “it worked well for most of their candidates” and “fitted well with the over 25-year-old candidates”.

The support provided to candidates out with any college or centre attendance was mainly in the form of placement visits and support to complete distance learning materials by phone, email, text and occasionally with some on-line material. The majority of candidate workplace visits (excluding assessor observation visits) by providers are linked to SDS contract reporting/reviews and assessment evidence gathering/support.

Three providers within the aquaculture and agriculture sectors reported “employer agreed access and time to visit candidates” in the workplace as often being a timeconsuming issue. Workplace livestock production health emergencies, biosecurity issues, employee production workload and weather-related issues were some of the examples cited for visit cancellations, often at the last moment.

The number of provider visits varied significantly from the SDS candidate quarterly review requirement, to twice that by some providers. This is influenced by candidate attendance periods with the provider, location visit costs, delivery/assessment model and SDS funding support level (in some cases). Non-assessor observation visits ranged

16

from 4-8 across the different MA subjects and delivery models, with the norm being 4 for the ‘average’ candidate.

Two providers indicated that they maintained better candidate contact and progress if they visited more often. The additional time/costs involved were recognised, and it was accepted that some cross-sector MA funding was used to support this. They felt that this would not possible for most providers who are only delivering Rural MAs and do not deliver a multi-sectored range of non-rural MAs. 4.4 Total MA attendance days and award completion period The total MA attendance (Table 2) indicates the total candidate attendance days (if any) undertaken at different providers centres or campuses over the duration of their MA in the different sector areas. As previously discussed, each rural provider has a range of reasons for their variation of ‘days of attendance’ and this is also linked to the number of supporting placement visits undertaken. There is no nationally recognised or adopted attendance pattern, but this has allowed providers some flexibility to meet the different rural delivery challenges. The main area of consistency is within engineering where a more recognised national approach has been adopted by the 2 providers visited and the 2 contacted by phone.

The different delivery models will result in a different learning experience for the candidates undertaking different Rural MAs, particularly in agriculture. The learner’s experience is out with the scope of this report, but it is noted that this is reviewed in various structured ways by the providers, SDS and Education Scotland. However, the level of candidate skills competency and knowledge and understanding (K&U) must be consistent to meet the SQA award criteria and MA enhancements and are assessed during the external verification process.

The average MA completion months (Table 2) in the same sector does vary a little.

Most candidates appear to complete their MA award within the notional time stated in the relevant MA framework document (where stated). In a few situations the time to completion is less, which is generally related to employee contract periods and additional levels of employer, provider support and enhancements offered. There are some cases where it may take a little longer, but these are generally linked to individual candidate progress issues.

4.5 ‘Off-the-job delivery’ – approaches and resources During candidate college-based ‘off-the-job training’, almost all providers focused on developing and assessing the majority of the knowledge and understanding and some practical skills assessments required for the SVQ. Within land-based engineering and engineering providers develop a range of candidate practical skills and competences. Almost all providers’ delivery models (not F/T) rely significantly upon the workplace employer to introduce and develop practical skills training and competences in the workplace.

17

Most providers indicated that there was insufficient time to undertake any skills training during candidate workplace visits. The focus during most visits was supporting SVQ K&U and evidence gathering.

There were only a few examples provided where 1-3 candidates from the same employer were at a geographically close location on one farm estate, forest area or aquaculture shore base. This does present rural providers with a lack of many opportunities to arrange candidate visits and support in the workplace which have ‘economies of scale’ in relation to time and provider travel logistics.

Engineering and, to a lesser extent, land-based engineering employers generally have 2-4 MA candidates based at one workshop site. This did enable more opportunities to achieve visit ‘economies of scale’ and reduce time, travel costs and logistics.

The provider’s ability to ensure the use of up to date equipment or source some expensive equipment was not cited as a major resource limitation. Most providers outlined effective solutions to mitigate these issues if they arise, but solutions take time to organise and monitor, often with additional costs. This was an issue where some employers demand, and providers agree to undertake, an optional unit for only 1-3 candidates. Examples include: Electronic management systems; Extract wood product by cable crane.

Depending upon the MA route and options offered, some employers were not always able to provide the range of livestock or equipment required. Providers must then take time to organise additional training or short placement periods at a different location.

Examples of this were mainly in relation to agriculture and smaller trees and timber employers.

Where some employers within a sector (aquaculture and forestry) deliver more than the mandatory MA enhancements, this can influence the provider’s delivery content and approach. This is only possible if providers can overcome the difficult and time-consuming task of crossreferencing many of these additional, often companyspecific ‘in-house’ training programmes, to the MA requirements. This is not always possible, and some of this additional employer sponsored training is out with these requirements.

When companies reassess budgets as restrictions lift, it is likely that the proportion allocated to training will decrease. It may be that the proportion that the provider needs to deliver will increase.

Aquaculture and trees and timber providers have made some attempts to do this and add hours to the accumulated ‘off-the-job training’ hours, in some cases reducing their own candidate delivery time. This is, however, uncommon and the issue of ‘commercial confidentiality’ in many of the ‘in-house’ company specific programmes prevents this happening more widely. It was noted that land-based engineering delivery at SCQF level 6 can be influenced by the prior attendance of some candidates on ‘manufacturer’s training courses’ sponsored by their employers.

The Engineering MA does not have short industry training course enhancements as recognised in Rural MAs, and there were no examples of ‘manufacturer’s courses’ discussed.

18

4.6 Delivery development and seasonality There appear to be few opportunities within the rural sector for providers to work collaboratively with other providers on National Occupational Standards (NOS) interpretation, delivery materials, delivery methods or any on-line approaches.

There is some limited resistance to this, but most would welcome the time saving and reassurance provided by some collaboration. One provider cited examples of cross campus economies of delivery approach, which could usefully be shared across the wider provider community, without the fear of competitive recruitment, professionalism or copyright issues.

Variable start dates for programmes, and increased flexibility in the funding model, could support increased campus efficiency and access whilst social distancing is in place. It might also improve the student experience and their skills development, by allowing more time for training prior to key work activities. See also section 5.1

Almost all distance learning and in college delivery material is ‘paper-based’. More than 50% of providers do offer candidates CD/memory sticks, or limited on-line platform access (Moodle, Mahara, Blackboard, Brightspace), support to learning, or additional information in college and in the workplace/home. There is a broad recognition that more could be done in this area with improving technologies and future broadband access, but the current limitations were expressed as: o Variable candidate IT/keyboard skills o Very variable broadband/telephone connectivity issues across rural Scotland this includes the Borders/Highlands and Islands and remote areas in all regions where rural candidates live and work o “Candidates like the paper approach, easy to access and pick-up” o Some providers have tried some electronic formats and stated that “students just did not like it and it was very unreliable” o One provider campus site had monitored candidate use when in and out of college and reported use to be very limited, at less than 25% o IT-based learning is not appropriate for all candidates, and could be seen as a real barrier to learning by some Only one provider campus is actively developing a more on-line approach to its delivery and assessment gathering. However, several providers are ‘putting more delivery materials on-line’, but these are not interactive or designed specifically for MA candidates in the workplace.

The variety in provision and platforms may make it harder to share resources between providers. However, the recent rapid upskilling in, and adoption of, online support may lead to increased enthusiasm for collaboration in this area.

The seasonality of delivery was identified by providers as most acute within agriculture and aquaculture, with only planting affecting trees and timber. Seasonality was raised as an issue which impacts on time to plan/deliver/assess when the seasonal or production window of opportunity exists for a very limited time. This was a particular issue when candidates missed an opportunity with the employer or provider to undertake a seasonal or production task or assessment activity, e.g. sowing, lambing, fish vaccination treatment. These were often not repeatable on the same site

19

within the candidate award completion period. They required the provider to take time to arrange a move of candidates to another site for a short period to undertake these tasks where possible.

Land-based engineering and engineering providers did not feel seasonality was a particular delivery or resource issue for them. Most Land-based Engineering servicing activity being undertaken ‘out of season’ when equipment is not being used.

5. MA Assessment Approach All MA providers must meet SQA Centre Approval requirements and provide appropriate candidate evidence at all SQA External Verification visits (which occur at a minimum of once per year). This report focuses on the range of assessment approaches adopted, the issues which may affect provider resources, and the time to undertake assessment activities.

Table 3 shows the number of assessment visits undertaken by providers. These depend upon the MA SCQF level and the range of assessments which can be covered during any ‘off-the-job training’. Most providers try and assess K&U (particularly Q&A, reports and written responses) during the candidate’s time in college. Some have directly crossreferenced evidence with other MA enhancements or employer training, if used. In practice, however, most providers opt to ensure they meet SQA unit assessment requirements separately, with only limited cross-referencing of any other ‘off-the-job training’. The most common areas of assessment cross-referencing to demonstrate competence occur in some of the optional MA enhancements completed by candidates, e.g. Safe Use of Pesticides (PA1), RYA Power boat, Chainsaw maintenance and crosscutting.

Where there is very limited college delivery time, and within distance learning models in particular, assessor visits to the workplace (peripatetic assessors) ranged from 4-7 over the MA delivery period. Where providers can assess during college attendance periods the resulting number of visits are generally reduced and ranged from 1-4 over the MA delivery period.

The notable exception to this trend is with MA Engineering, where candidates follow a common NC F/T year (PEO - SCQF level 5), then attend college 1-2 days per month during their work-based SCQF level 6 period. Candidates receive a workplace assessor visit every 4-6 weeks, in addition to their quarterly SDS progress reviews.

20

Table 3. Provider assessment models by sector and award level Provider and SCQF College Only Additional Evidence Campus level based visiting assessor e-portfolio attendance periworkplace or ‘on-line’ days patetic visit days days Agriculture Orkney - UHI 5 16 0 3 No Orkney - UHI 6 36 0 3 No Borders 5 24 0 4 No Borders 6 24 0 4 No Barony - SRUC 5 25 0 3 Limited Barony - SRUC 6 25 0 3 Limited Oatridge - SRUC 5 5 5 1 No Oatridge - SRUC 6 5 5 2 No Train Shetland 5 1 Additional MA visits x 4 Aquaculture NAFC 5 0 5 0 No NAFC 7 0 4 0 No Inverness - UHI 5 0 5 0 Limited Inverness - UHI 7 0 4 0 Limited Trees and Timber Inverness - UHI 5 60 0 6 No Inverness - UHI 5 0 7 0 No Barony - SRUC 5 24 0 4 Yes Barony - SRUC 5 15 0 4 Yes Barony - SRUC 6 12 0 4 Yes Rural Skills RSS 5 0 5 0 No RSS 6 0 5 0 No Land-based Engineering Oatridge - SRUC 5 90 1 V Limited Oatridge - SRUC 6 40 2 V Limited Barony - SRUC 5 90 1 Yes Barony - SRUC 6 30 2 Yes Engineering Inverness – UHI 5 85 0 5 Yes Inverness - UHI 6 22 0 5 Yes NAFC 5 85 0 5 Yes NAFC 6 22 0 4 Yes

Paper based portfolio

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Some Some Some Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited No No Limited Limited

Most providers also indicated that the number of support and assessment visits are constrained to varying degrees by their available MA funding and delivery model. It was noted that additional visits are provided to individual candidates who need additional support.

21

The purpose of Assessor visits did vary a little, and included: o Direct candidate observation of practical assessment tasks o Candidate support to collate and gather portfolio assessment evidence o Oral/written test or clarification of K&U where required o Undertaking some aspect of contractual SDS Review activities With only one exception, all providers used employer/supervisor witness testimony to varying extents; 40-80% for many practical tasks and ‘job card’ completion. This was used to support evidence of competency, where seasonal and company-specific tasks could not be observed or assessed by other means. It is was noted that witness testimony could not be used by one provider whose candidate employers were, in the main, family members. This is not uncommon in agriculture but does mean providers must adapt their candidate assessment models to reflect and accommodate this. Most providers tried to engage with new employers, as part of an induction process, to provide examples of witness testimonies and their wider defined role in supporting their apprentices, with evidence-gathering opportunities. Evidence suggests that many employers are not as fully engaged with this process as providers would like and they continue to work on strategies to improve employer participation.

5.1 Key assessment model constraints Seasonality was raised as an issue which impacts on time to plan any assessment observation visits in the workplace when the ‘seasonal or production window of opportunity exists’. This is primarily an issue affecting agriculture and aquaculture and is also discussed in 4.5 in relation to rural delivery. The key issues being: visit logistics, time, travel cost, few visit ‘economies of scale’ with any one employer, different production, seasonality patterns across the wide range of Rural MAs. This again can be compared to an Engineering MA with many fewer variables and a broadly consistent national delivery and assessment approach.

As discussed in 4.3 the issue of getting agreed and timely access to visit candidates can be problematic. This was found to require more planning time by providers when arranging candidate assessor observation visits, which were linked to specific seasonal production tasks, e.g. lambing, sowing.

No rural MA employers currently have any accredited ‘in-house assessors’, and this is the norm for this sector as detailed in the Lantra commissioned report, Instructor and Assessor Network Mapping Project -2017. Discussions with providers in each industry sector confirmed that this position remains unchanged. The trees and timber sector ‘inhouse assessors’ with F&LS are no longer able to assess MA candidates in their workplace due to their new remit within this new Scottish Government agency. This has placed some additional assessor availability pressure on the other trees and timber MA providers as they pick up the MA awards and delivery. The consequence for Rural MA providers is that they must undertake some observation of assessment and evidencegathering support visits for candidates in the rural workplace.

Both engineering providers included within this report indicated that only 1 of their employers had an in-house assessor. However, they confirmed that many of the larger engineering employers in Scotland, delivering the Engineering MA, did have in-house assessors.

22

Discussions confirmed that providers do not collaborate on the interpretation or development of Rural MA assessments at a national level with other providers. As Rural MA frameworks change, or new staff come forward, providers recognise there is a significant level of duplicated development effort and time wasted. This is more acute within the Rural MA provision where candidate numbers are relatively low. Rural provider MA funding support is often challenging and time for staff to work collaboratively is seen as very limited.

SQA external verifiers do have the opportunity to identify different assessment practices but SQA have no structured mechanisms to effectively share these beyond their external verifiers. Staff from one larger provider did feel there is evidence of greater dialogue and consistency of assessment approach across campuses, but with limited opportunities to share this with other providers. Issues of competitive advantage and professionalism can be a barrier to effective collaboration by some providers.

However, given the wide geographical spread and wellestablished recruitment patterns for most providers, collaborative developments could now be an opportunity to improve efficiency and support sustainable Rural MA delivery.

During the COVID-19 reset and recovery phase, it may be that there is increased interest in the creation and support of a community of practice in this area, for both college and independent trainers and assessors.

5.2 Use of on-line assessments and e-portfolios Only 1 out of 12 Rural MA providers uses any form of e-portfolio to gather candidate evidence. Some use a mix of electronic formats to gather evidence (email, phone, texts, photos) but do not use an electronic platform to collate it. A paper-based portfolio was viewed as easier to collate, to spot missing evidence and provide to SQA EVs. Three engineering providers were using ‘Onefile’ e-portfolio with candidate access using mobile apps, and indicated that significantly more of their evidence was likely to be captured electronically in the workplace. This also appears to be the case in land-based engineering, where candidate opportunities to access workshop computers, laptops and electronic job card recording systems is more widespread.

It was noted that engineering providers and candidates are also supported through Semta and EAL links, with structured assessment portfolio documentation for Performing Engineering Operations (POE) – (SVQs at SCQF level 5). This is produced nationally and saves providers development time as well as allowing some level of national evidence gathering consistency of approach across all engineering providers.

No such supporting portfolio has been produced for any Rural MA by Lantra or any other stakeholder and this may be a future collaborative opportunity.

The outdoor nature of most of the other Rural MAs, and lack of easy access to IT, does influence the potential use of e-portfolios, though Rural MA providers recognised candidates’ use of mobile phones and their potential for evidence gathering in the workplace. Providers who had encouraged this were a little disappointed by candidate commitment and consistency to capture more evidence. Providers felt there would need to be a sustained and more structured approach to evidence-gathering using mobile phones. This would require further time and support to be given to candidates along

23

with approval by employers and would benefit from some central coordination. Funding support to develop suitable upload applications to an e-portfolio, similar to the ‘Onefile’, would be required.

Most providers also recognised that there may be some e-portfolio benefits, but without time and resource to explore them are reluctant to commit if it is just “paper evidence put on-line”. The general concern was one of suitability for rural candidates and what, if any, time saving benefits an e-portfolio would provide.

Almost all Rural MA providers currently felt that ‘paper’ was easier for their candidates and would be concerned about a blanket e-portfolio MA approach for reasons previously outlined in 4.6 delivery, but stressed: o Variable candidate IT/keyboard skills o “e-portfolios would not be appropriate for all their students” o “Candidates like the paper approach, easy to access and pick-up”

There is perhaps an opportunity to provide support for a sector wide approach to the use of electronic portfolios and the recording and tracking of skills development linked to the provision of Modern Apprenticeship qualifications.

6. Administrative and Other Related Issues This area of discussion was explored with Rural MA business development and delivery staff contributors from across the different providers. Most had experience of other MA sectors, and some had worked with SDS and other provider funding systems. They raised a number of issues where they felt the SDS funding model and administrative process in some way disadvantaged Rural MA providers or added additional pressure and time to the administrative processes.

6.1 SDS administration requirements The Funding Information and Processing System (FIPS) milestone-based claim process requires candidate validation of each of their unit achievement successes before providers can draw down milestone-based funding. Candidates must respond to an SDS unit achievement text or email message with a ‘Y’; any other response is invalid.

Candidates must respond to SDS with a ‘Y’ within 17 days, otherwise providers must re-enter all the candidate’s full milestone claim data again. Providers indicated that significant time is wasted re-entering this data and estimated the candidate chase up and re-entry time to be in the region of 2 hours per candidate.

24

FIPS was considered challenging by almost all providers, with stated issues including the level of bureaucracy and lack of flexibility. Its use was felt to be more difficult for many rural MA candidates with poor rural phone and IT connectivity issues as previously outlined. The constant chasing of candidates by support and teaching staff (and in some cases by company managers) to encourage them to respond to SDS was viewed as a funding pressure, and not good use of staff time. This was particularly noted as an issue even after some candidates had actually responded to SDS. Candidates had reported to providers that their phones often see SDS texts as ‘junk mail’ and they do not respond for a myriad of other valid reasons, not generally accepted by SDS.

Skills Development Scotland acknowledges that FIPS is a relatively new process and stresses the importance of providers working closely with their Skills Investment Advisers. It agrees that during this time of great change, building understanding and capacity among all involved in this system could bring important intelligence in supporting the next phase of the training recovery model.

MA delivery staff from 2 providers felt that “the SDS funding model and milestones are effectively driving the curriculum delivery and assessment”. Others stating that MA delivery is “Milestone funding driven and not focused on the Learner” and “at odds with a holistic learning model promoted by SQA and Education Scotland”. It is noted that several providers recognise the additional pressure staff and candidates are put under by managers to ‘achieve’ milestones.

6.2 An alternative approach Three providers cited examples such as MA Engineering and Care where candidate funding milestone claims only require recorded demonstration of candidate ‘progress’ at each 13-week review period, and not unit achievement. It is noted that a total of 19 MA frameworks are currently listed by SDS as using this quarterly review payment plan (QRP) method (see Appendix 4). This claim approach was seen by some providers as much more flexible and appropriate to Rural MA delivery and assessment models. It was felt that it could be more suited to the seasonality and production cycle of Rural MAs and could help reduce milestone claim pressures.

Regular candidate review visits are linked with college attendance sessions, and some providers combined them with assessor visits to the candidate’s workplace. Only a few providers send out administrative staff or contract co-ordinators to undertake reviews.

This is mainly done where only peripatetic assessment is undertaken, or when assessors do not have approved time to undertake any additional visits.

The provider norm within engineering was that of a clear separation between subject specialist assessor visits and those undertaking a wider review activity. This is reflected in the greater number of regular visits undertaken during the work-based period for Engineering MA 2nd and 3rd year candidates at SCQF level 6.

25

6.3 MA funding and contribution rates Whilst not the main focus of this research, funding-related issues have been touched on by providers in some earlier sections of this report. This section draws some of these together and develops others a little more.

The provider’s ability to at least ‘break even’ financially was seen as important if the delivery of Rural MAs to small rural candidate numbers, across an often-extensive geographic area, is to remain viable.

Only 3 providers ask employers for a small administration or travel contribution to provide enhancements and support some visits. Almost all providers have approached or considered asking employers for a contribution but rejected the notion for a range of reasons: • Employers asked said they would not pay • Employers would just drop the MA and fund some technical / legislative tests themselves, with no need for more ‘off-the-job’ MA time • Fear of losing MA employers in the future and industry support for the MA in ‘relatively new’ sectors – Rural Skills, Agriculture, Trees and Timber • A strategic view taken by 2 providers was that charging Rural MA employers would also mean charging all their other non-rural MA employers. This was viewed as unlikely to occur across their wider MA course portfolio • Some larger employers in engineering and aquaculture are already paying the Apprenticeship Levy and would not contribute more to individual MA providers • Most agriculture and rural skills employers have 0 or only 1-2 additional staff. Their apprentice is seen as an acceptable cost and workforce contributor, but not if more costs are attached to their employment. It was pointed out by one provider that Agricultural Wages Board regulations do put the apprentice pay level above the minimum for an unskilled worker in any other industry sector Providers at 5 locations use their own practical site facilities such as: farms, trees and timber resources, engineering equipment and workshops for some MA delivery and assessment. Providers indicated that these facilities could not be justified by the level of MA activity or funding. With the exception possibly of the full-time Engineering MA 1st year provision model and use of consumable items, the use of such facilities is not generally set against or costed to their MA provision. It is instead subsidised to some extent through Scottish Funding Council (SFC) funding activity.

Although it may be that employers would be reluctant to contribute individually per candidate, it may be that representative organisations such associated ILGs may be more supportive of a collective resource which would build capacity and increase access to skills.

As funding was not a primary focus of the report, there is no evidence to quantify the level of cross-subsidisation undertaken by individual Rural MA providers to sustain individual MA programmes. It is only possible to indicate that this is occurring to varying degrees and may not be sustainable.

26

The direct MA delivery/assessment costs/time are known by all providers interviewed.

Costs are confidential, but an illustrative example of indicative time and realistic costs, based on one delivery model for Agriculture at SCQF Level 5, is shown in Appendix 3.

The shared view is that any further reduction in supported funding may make some sector provision unviable for some providers to deliver. This is primarily due to: • the relatively low levels of comparative funding support in some small rural sectors • the low number of candidates in some sectors • the ‘roll-on roll-off ‘model of recruitment does help cash flow but not delivery economies of scale • the relatively high costs of Rural MA delivery and visiting candidates across a wide geographic area • the lack of opportunity to gain many ‘economies of scale’ as almost all employers only have one apprentice • Reluctance of almost all employers to pay additional MA training costs or contributions, due mainly to the size of their rural business and rising costs of production The loss of any Rural MA provision is not one that providers would undertake lightly and is one that is very dependent upon: • Providers’ ‘senior management’ commitment to the rural sector and willingness to cross-subsidise a Rural MA programme from other non-rural MA provision or funding • The provider’s ability to draw down any additional Scottish Funding Council (SFC) credit funding to support aspects of their MA delivery model. It is noted that SFC credit funding is not available to private providers • The provider’s wider strategic considerations and operational constraints

27

7. Summary Four out of the 5 Rural MA frameworks considered in this research have been reviewed

by Lantra within the last 3 years, with Agriculture currently under review in 2020.

Different rural industry sectors engage and value MAs in different ways, and this can influence the framework review process, which is now increasingly dependent on evidence of industry demand. There are important aspects of the review process and resulting provider delivery implications which appear to not be clear to some of those participating in reviews. These relate to core skills, determination of ‘off-the-job training hours’, developing new units and use of the frameworks by SDS in formulation of sector funding support levels. The framework template is not required to be used as a vehicle to identify any sector-specific delivery and resource issues which may impact one or more sectors, such as seasonality in agriculture and aquaculture. It could be that providers should be encouraged to come forward and feed the information into future reviews.

The majority of Rural MA providers draw their candidates from out with their postcode area, and some providers and campuses have a recognised national industry sector remit. Providers that only cover a few postcode areas are within island communities or cover large and less populated areas. The wide rural and remote distribution of MA candidates and their workplaces presents Rural MA providers with some significantly different logistical and resource challenges if benchmarked against most engineering MA providers. While the age profile is broadly similar across most rural sectors and providers, aquaculture is different. Aquaculture employment opportunities in these often very remote areas attract mainly the over 25 age group. Providers felt that current MA funding support levels do not adequately address the unique recruitment, delivery and logistical challenges they face. Providers also recognised that more over 25s are coming forwards from other sectors such as agriculture and trees and timber.

A range of different provider delivery models, across sectors and within the same sector, have evolved to meet different organisational, recruitment and funding constraints. No one prescriptive model would fit the range of different circumstances or employer needs. Providers have had to adapt their delivery models to fit their own circumstances, including the development of distance learning materials and strategies to support candidates in the workplace.

This was not found to be the case in engineering, where a more common MA delivery approach is generally adopted. This is a reflection of much higher levels of recruitment, a more widely recognised industry employment entry approach, and candidates being geographically much closer to their providers. The identified issues of seasonality, few workplace visiting economies of scale, travel logistics and often limited candidate IT connectivity, do add to delivery time and costs, again not evident within an Engineering MA. Given the wide range of delivery models and levels of support, there is a need for all Rural MA providers to be clearer on how their candidates are accumulating the recommended minimum ‘off-the-job training hours’, within their overall delivery model and time frame.

28

Providers have adapted their workplace assessment approaches to fit in with the constraints previously identified in their delivery models, but also to meet SDS funding milestones. The lack of appetite by any of the rural industry sector employers to develop or use ‘in-house assessors’ is a reflection of their size of business and previous MA assessment experiences. Providers use a mix of college-based, visiting peripatetic assessment and witness testimony to ensure candidate competency. The staff assessor time deployed by providers is dependent upon candidate numbers, locations and college attendance days, and can vary from 3-7 days per candidate.

Engineering providers consistently visit candidates more often, up to 9 times per year. This is more than Rural MA providers can undertake and is linked to the candidate ‘progress’ QRP payment plan adopted and funding contribution levels in engineering.

Although there might be a reluctance to become a workplace assessor, programmes such as the Land based Pre-Apprenticeship are increasing the number of, and support and training for, workplace mentors and it may be that a ‘middle ground’ can be found in terms of assessing candidate progress, particularly if the there was a move to QRP.

Candidate IT-based evidence recording is limited, with only one developing example of e-portfolio use. It is recognised that developments in this area may be easier for land-based engineering and engineering currently uses the ‘Onefile’ e-portfolio. The reluctance of Rural MA providers to develop this area is linked to a range of IT connectivity challenges, candidate attitudes and their current experiences. It is notable that Rural MA providers rarely collaborate in the development of MA unit delivery material or assessment areas, despite a general willingness among delivery staff to do so. Both Lantra and SQA Accreditation may have a facilitating role in this regard.

A range of challenges around the SDS FIPS system and their impact on learners and provider staff time have been identified. The SDS QRP payment plan used by engineering may also be more appropriate to Rural MA providers and help introduce opportunities for some greater flexibility. The need for most Rural MA programmes to at least ‘break even’ is a concern for several providers as costs rise and some funding contribution levels drop. Providers feel any attempt to charge employers would have a very negative effect on recruitment and employer relationships. The inability of most providers to cross-subsidise some MA programmes, or continue to offer unviable programmes, was a concern raised by providers within agriculture, aquaculture and rural skills.

29

8. Summary of Key Benchmarked Differences between Engineering and Rural MAs Benchmark Industry recognition

Engineering Recognised nationally as the employment entry route

Clarity of framework documentation

Pathway and expected delivery models / options clearly laid out

Recruitment

High levels of recruitment

Candidate distribution

Generally close to MA provider

Delivery and Assessment model

A broadly similar national approach adopted by all providers

Sector Skills Council support

Semta and EAL provide supporting portfolio and other documentation No significant impact identified

Impact of Seasonality on delivery and resources

Employer Apprentices on one site In-house Workplace Assessors SDS Milestone claim method

Generally 2-4 with an opportunity to have visiting ‘economies of scale’ Some but mainly with the larger employers QRP payment plan based on candidate ‘progress’

Provider Assessor visits to the workplace SDS Contribution Rate

Frequent - often every 6 weeks High

30

Rural Relatively recent introduction, with variable industry awareness and recognition Flexible delivery model (as requested by industry), with options more variable and/or not specified Modest to low levels of recruitment Dispersed across Scotland and generally not close to MA provider A wide range of different models adopted by different providers and across different campuses SQA provide the supporting documentation Significant impact on planning, resources and delivery across Agriculture, Aquaculture, Rural Skills and Trees and Timber Generally only 1 No visiting ‘economies of scale’ None across any sector Milestone Norm Plan based on candidate ‘unit achievement’ Less frequent - often every 10 weeks Variable with all but Landbased Engineering, significantly lower than Engineering

9. Recommendations 1. Lantra Standards and Frameworks and SQA Accreditation should explore how the review process of SVQ structures can more effectively engage and inform all stakeholders. This could include training on the required processes, including core skill mapping.

2. Lantra Standards and Frameworks should explore how the MA framework review processes can more effectively engage and inform all stakeholders. This could include training on the required processes, formulation of ‘off-the-job training’ hours (and what that means), core skills mapping and the possible implications of framework changes on delivery by providers.

3. Lantra (Scotland) should discuss the general findings of this report with key strategic partners and how these may influence future Rural MA funding contributions. This is particularly relevant to agriculture, with a revised framework in 2020, and aquaculture for the over 25 employed age group.

4. Lantra (Scotland) should explore with SDS and providers if a more realistic and flexible approach to FIPS implementation is possible, to reduce unnecessary duplication of data and improve the method of rural candidate communication with SDS. 5. Lantra (Scotland) should explore further with SDS and providers if a QRP ‘progress-based’ payment plan for Rural MA frameworks is possible, and if it would benefit stakeholders and be supported by all Rural MA providers.

6. Lantra (Scotland) should explore with SQA Awards how External Verification of Rural MAs can more effectively share assessment practice and help support provider collaboration, to reduce the assessment evidence burden of the SVQ Awards within Rural MAs. 7. Lantra (Scotland) should explore with MA providers what collaborative development opportunities could be effectively progressed to assist their MA delivery, based on the general findings in this report.

Report findings would suggest that the two sectors which may currently gain most benefit are agriculture and trees and timber. The Agriculture MA framework has just been revised (2020) and could benefit the three providers as implementation is phased in over time. Trees and timber providers are still developing their MA materials / delivery approach and would benefit from some collaborative support.

The key objectives of any collaborative venture should be to: o reduce future provider MA unit development time / costs o support some standardisation of common unit delivery materials, assessments or approach o agree e-portfolio or on-line MA development, where possible

31

8. Lantra (Scotland) should work with key strategic partners to take forwards at least one identified and agreed collaborative development opportunity with MA providers in a specific subject area. For example, Lantra might usefully help facilitate voluntary and productive collaboration between providers to pilot a more sustainable MA delivery model, sharing resources and assessments which will ultimately help to inform and encourage further self-funded collaboration and address contribution rate constraints. Additional funding and support may be required.

10. Acknowledgements Lantra (Scotland) and SurveyZone acknowledge, and are extremely grateful for, the considerable contributions of the following providers and organisations to this research report: Borders College Forestry and Land Scotland Forth Valley College Inverness College UHI NAFC Orkney College UHI Rural Skills Scotland SRUC – Oatridge campus SRUC – Barony campus Train Shetland

32

Appendix 1 Modern Apprenticeship frameworks: Modern Apprenticeship in Agriculture Level 2 – Lantra January 2014 Modern Apprenticeship in Agriculture Level 3 – Lantra January 2014 Modern Apprenticeship in Aquaculture SCQF Level 5 – Lantra January 2016 Modern Apprenticeship in Aquaculture SCQF Level 7 – Lantra January 2016 Modern Apprenticeship in Trees and Timber SCQF Level 5 – Lantra February 2018 Modern Apprenticeship in Trees and Timber SCQF Level 6 – Lantra February 2018 Modern Apprenticeship in Land-based Engineering SCQF Level 5 – Lantra October 2018 Modern Apprenticeship in Land-based Engineering SCQF Level 6 – Lantra October 2018 Modern Apprenticeship in Rural Skills SCQF Level 5 – Lantra January 2016 Modern Apprenticeship in Rural Skills SCQF Level 6 – Lantra January 2016 Modern Apprenticeship in Engineering SCQF level 6 – Semta February 2018

33

Appendix 2 Postcode Area Map

34

Appendix 3 Typical Costing Structure Example costing model Modern apprenticeship in Agriculture at SCQF Level 5 2-year delivery model MA Administration Telephone calls and visits to workplaces 2 hours @ £20 per hour

£40

Induction 1.5 hrs @ £20 per hour

£30

Four 3 hourly reviews per year @ £20 per hour x 2 years

£480

Mileage 8 x 150 miles @ 45p

£540

Start-up paperwork 1 hour @ £15

£15

Admin x 30 mins per month x 24 @ £15

£180

Off-the-job training and Assessment College 14 days/year x 2 years @ £200/day/Av class size of 8 Assessor workplace visits 3/year x 2 years @ £200/day

£700 £1200

2 x Industry Enhancements average cost £350 each

£700

Assessor travel costs 3 x 2 x150 miles @ 45p

£405

Consumable training costs £100

£100

Assessment recording and EV visits 2 days @ £200/day

£400

Total Indicative delivery Costs / Candidate over the 2-year delivery model

£4,790

SDS Contribution Rate for Agriculture at SCQF Level 5

£3,200

Delivery Margin

-£1,590

35

Appendix 4 Extract from SDS ‘Guidance for Payment Plans based on Participant Quarterly Progress Reviews (QPR)’ effective from 4th June 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Achieving Excellence in Sports Performance Care Services Leadership and Management Professional Apprenticeship Childhood Practice Technical Apprenticeship Creative Design Engineering Engineering Construction Fashion and Textile Heritage (Kiltmaking Pathway only) Healthcare Support (Clinical and Non-Clinical) Life Sciences Maritime Occupations (Port Operations Pathway only) Pharmacy Services Power Distribution Procurement Rail Engineering Social Services (Children and Young People) including the Technical Apprenticeship Social Services and Healthcare including the Technical Apprenticeship Water Industry Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance

•

These guidelines apply to all QPR payment plans and frameworks may be added to the above list on an ongoing basis.

•

Evidence Requirements

•

For quarterly milestone achievement to be valid, a review of the participant’s progress must be undertaken and recorded on the Participant Quarterly Progress Review form (Appendix 6a of the MA Conditions and Specification) within a 6-week review window (see Figs.1 and 2). The Appendix 6a must be signed and dated by the Participant, the Reviewer and the Employer.

Actual progress must be recorded on the Appendix 6a. Progress towards the MA/VQ can include progress towards the following: Achievement within the VQ Attendance and progress at College, including any mandatory enhancements that are part of the MA framework Progress in the workplace towards gaining competence Underpinning knowledge relevant to the MA framework

• • • • •

36