Apprenticeships are good for everyone. So why aren’t companies buying in?

by Kwan Jin Yao

WE NEED apprenticeships that let students study and work at the same time. They not only get students ready for the workforce, they also let businesses shape what students are learning, so that they graduate with skills that are immediately relevant to their industries.

But to keep such apprenticeships going, companies must be willing to put money in them. If they don’t, it’s up to the G to persuade them such programmes are worthwhile investments.

So for now, the G is working with universities and selected companies to launch pilots of these work-study apprenticeships. These plans were revealed by Acting Minister of Education Ong Ye Kung in an interview with The Straits Times on Monday (May 16), who added that in the 21st century, “businesses do not just offer internships, but step into the university to shape the curriculum”. In his interview, the minister also touched on the educational aspirations of Singaporeans, and his vision for the SkillsFuture movement.

In fact, the G has already started pushing for such work-study schemes, calling for educational institutions to work with industries. As recently as in March last year, the G introduced the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme. Where the new work-study apprenticeships revealed by Mr Ong are geared towards university students, the Earn and Learn is for fresh ITE and polytechnic graduates.

The German and Swiss standards

Two countries known for their apprenticeships are Germany and Switzerland. In these countries, students who are vocational apprentices shuttle between the classroom and the workplace, and what they learn in classrooms are applied directly to operations in their respective workplaces, said Mr Ong. He added that future work-study programmes here would be modelled after the German and Swiss systems.

These systems are built on the strong involvement of the companies. The companies invest in their apprentices, help build school programmes, and in many instances, actively seek out partners such as local colleges. Here’s a snapshot of what they’ve achieved:

• There is a large number of companies offering apprenticeship programmes (across the over 340 recognised trades in Germany, there are 40 apprentices per 1,000 workers, and in Switzerland around one-third of employers offer training places);

• Per-apprentice costs of training are high, ranging from $34,000 to $110,000 in Germany for instance, yet these costs are justified through returns on investment; and

• The governments and companies – usually with the help of researchers – have sought to further quantify the net gains or losses of these investments, and therefore in the process, allow the government to also track macro-effects on labour productivity.

Are Singaporean companies convinced?

Whether Singaporean companies will display such strong involvement is less clear. Take the Earn and Learn programme for instance. Employers can recruit graduates from the ITE and polytechnics, putting them through structured on-the-job training and eventually benefiting from their expertise, yet the Workforce Development Agency revealed in December last year that there were 150 trainees across eight sector-specific programmes. No further information on targets was given, but the figure of 150 is minuscule compared to the tens of thousands who graduate from the ITE and polytechnics every year.

Similarly, a Creative Craftsman Apprenticeship Programme – designed for those who want to pursue a career in the furniture or carpentry industry through a structured apprenticeship – aimed to attract 180 graduates over two years when the programme was launched in February 2014. In May last year, however, only 43 students had signed up for the programme, and little has been said about why take-up rates fell below expectations. Were students apprehensive? Or was it the lack of interest in the industry?

In this vein too, the G can be more explicit with its targets, specifying the number of individuals and companies it would like to bring on board for these programmes.

Because if the abilities of Singaporean ITE and polytechnic graduates – most of whom have a strong foundation in technical and vocational education and training, or TVET – are considered, I think responsibility for work-study apprenticeships should fall on the companies, which have the most to gain in the long run. Yes, the G can provide initial incentives – such as subsidies for university tuition fees or allowances to the apprentices – but after doling out the initial incentives, the role of the G would be one of facilitation and coordination between schools and businesses. It will, for instance, ensure that university curriculum is adequately broad-based to mitigate the threat of obsolescence, and the G will continue to aggregate data and information from the companies to ascertain progress.

Eventually though, the private sector has to take the lead instead of relying on governmental carrots before offering apprenticeship programmes.

Apprenticeships for the future

Another question for Mr Ong would be the difference between the new work-study apprenticeships for university students, and the degree programmes at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). Even before the Education Minister revealed his plans, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had announced in his 2015 National Day Rally last year that the new SIT campus in Punggol would be integrated with a creative industry cluster, highlighting the integration of study and work endeavours.

A popular choice for polytechnic graduates, the SIT has – since its establishment in 2009 – also collaborated with industry partners, who provide attachment stints and input in the structure or content of courses. In this vein, will the other universities be asked to emulate these arrangements?

And again, since companies are central to these arrangements, their present reticence must be addressed. Under the Earn and Learn Programme and the Creative Craftsman Apprenticeship Programme, were companies or industry partners receptive? Did they have any reservations, or did they face difficulties in the recruitment or management of their apprentices? Without government subsidies, will companies still remain enthusiastic about work-study apprenticeships?

Securing company buy-in is important in the long term, if Singapore is keen to boost labour productivity and promote the desired cultures of skills mastery and lifelong learning. In the even longer term, there could also be a wider culture shift, addressing entrenched prejudice towards blue-collared occupations and TVET in general, as apprentices who have benefited from these work-study programmes go on to distinguish themselves in their workplace – and beyond.

 

Featured image The Graduates by Flickr user Luftphilia. (CC BY 2.0)

If you like this article, Like the Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Apprenticeships are good for everyone. So why aren’t companies buying in? appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- Jin Yao Kwan