In last week’s newsletter we reported on training provider JTL chief executive’s response to an Ofsted report suggesting apprenticeships are delivering poor quality for money and seeing thousands of “under achieving” young people.

Jon Graham said he is disappointed the headline messaging that has been seized upon, ignores the very positive results and outcomes many specialist providers are delivering for the UK economy. Read the full article here. 

I received a response from an M&E construction manager:

“I was interested to read your article , I served a very structured JIB apprenticeship with C J Bartley & Co Ltd from June 1981 till July 1984. There was an appointed apprentice manager who had involvement in workplace training and college courses.

Now watching all three of my own children and speaking to their friends who are going through modern Apprenticeships , I see a wide variation in training. Some are very structured ie UKPN others seem to lack any clear direction on what is the end goal and the route to it.

I now work as an M&E manager on London Power Tunnel project , using a wide variety of tradesman, for too many years the educational focus seems to of been to get people into university this seems to of created the situation where we potentially have a lot of chiefs(often with no idea) and very few Indians with the sufficient skillset to become capable tradesman.

I now look at an ageing workforce thinking what will happen when we are too old to work.”

As always, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.





Training provider JTL’s chief executive has responded to this week’s Ofsted report that seems to suggest apprenticeships are delivering poor quality for money and seeing thousands of “under achieving” young people.

Jon Graham said he is disappointed the headline messaging that has been seized upon, ignores the very positive results and outcomes many specialist providers are delivering for the UK economy.

Graham commented: “We welcome Ofsted’s  investigation into apprenticeship issues and their concerns around quality and accept that their comments have  resonance in the wider apprenticeship field, where many short-term apprenticeships have been developed in areas that do not support fundamental business requirements - such as addressing the national skills shortage.

“However, we’d have liked to have seen more media coverage of the benefits of apprenticeships to the economy too – for instance a recent report estimated a Higher Apprenticeship can increase an individual’s lifetime earning potential by up to £150,000, comparable to the return for a university graduate.

“I also think it’s important to recognise that there are many high quality training providers not reflected in these headlines. Achievement rates on apprenticeships are higher than ever before, and we’re particularly delighted that through pre-screening and ongoing candidate assessment and review, JTL consistently performs 10% higher than the national success rate in our apprenticeship training, with completion rates of around 80%. We know other training organisations have experienced similar success levels with their apprentices too.

“If you delve more deeply into the Ofsted report it does acknowledge that there are training providers doing a good job, so it is very disappointing that the headlines we’ve seen today following publication have treated all apprenticeships in the same way.”

I would be very interested to hear your views.

Following on from last week’s comments on the IET’s warning on counterfeit publications I have received further correspondence on the matter.

A reader commented: “I am afraid I can only agree wholeheartedly with the above and, would also question, which is worse, a counterfeit book, or a book full of counterfeit regulations published by an organisation which is clearly 'not fit for purpose' The very fact that someone has to publish ‘guidance notes’ to the regulations is a clear indication that they have not been drafted properly by what the IEE used to call ‘competent persons’. The old IEE regs were printed in plain English, were easy to understand, minimal in number, and gave a very high level of built in safety protection to electrical installations.The IET regulations are quite the opposite in many ways, including areas of safety.”

This is, by no means, the view of the ER team, but we do value input from our readers.

See the next issue of Electrical Review for the full story.

As ever, I would like to hear your views.

I received an email this week from a reader commenting on a story we featured in our September issue - http://www.electricalreview.co.uk/news/10745-counterfeit-publications

The reader, who did not wish to be named, wrote: "I could hardly believe my eyes when I read your warning of counterfeit wiring rules.
The problem of course is the very high price the IET has placed upon the book knowing that they will sell many copies. Getting people to read it is perhaps another subject.
I had a look on Google to see what price is now being asked and noticed the list of customers reviews. This one sums it up very well:

'This is an absolute racket. An overpriced, modestly updated, language-mangling, revenue-generating, time-thief of a book that spawns an industry of courses, guides and guidance notes. The IET could literally send out a couple of photocopied pages detailing the actual changes, like they had to a few years ago when the regs were published with some hideously embarrassing mistakes. (Like forgetting what a ring was.) Still, I shall chuck more than a hundred quid at it to satisfy Napit, and it is a lovely shade of yellow. As a lovely design detail, all IET publications disintegrate after you've had the temerity to check a few things in there'

Surely it is time these regulations were available on line and simple enough for the average electrician to understand. Perhaps the counterfeit edition is in simple English” the ER reader continued.

I would be very interested to hear your views on the matter.

Data Centre news from our sister title

@elecreviewmag