FEATURE INDUSTRY TRAINING At a
With the government putting pressure on local authorities to adopt apprenticeship schemes, Barry Hopley explains to Chris Gilson why the BPA has not pursued this path for civil enforcement
PARKING Q
uantity or quality? It’s an age-old question and, in terms of the government’s well-publicised
The BPA’s bespoke training scheme leads to appropriate skills qualifi cations that have professionalised the industry
Barry Hopley
apprenticeship schemes, the focus seems to rest on the quantity of apprentices enrolled. It’s not a situation that Barry Hopley – prominent member of the BPA’s Professional Development & Standards Board and head of learning development at NSL – is happy with, and he’s keen to challenge those apprenticeship misconceptions and protect the BPA’s well established approach to skills and qualifi cations – in place since 2005. Looking thoughtful, Hopley says: ‘The idea of a CEO apprenticeship programme compromises what the BPA has achieved with its qualifi cation and skills agenda.’ It’s easy to see his point. The BPA’s current skills strategy has led to recognised standards of training and qualifi cations that have transformed what was an industry, into a profession. The current strategy addresses most of what is highlighted in the government’s agenda for apprenticeships, and the creation of a CEO apprenticeship scheme would be a backward step for the profession and those who work within it.
Targets and quotas Local authorities are being measured with targets and quotas. However, when it comes to the training and development of people, it is quality that’s important, not quantity of apprentices. In response to the critique of the Richard report of November last year, which aimed to redefi ne apprenticeships, two fi ndings were emphasised: That schemes should not just be simple conversions of existing roles, but should offer new roles for new people
An apprenticeship should be sustainable with long-term development of a wide range of transferrable skills at its core On the surface, the parking profession seems to be an ideal proving-ground for new starters, with thousands of employees in the civil enforcement sector. However, Hopley remains unmoved: ‘The current
20 JUNE 2013
crossroads A positive impact
There are other factors to consider: parking qualifi cations are still relatively new, but are having a positive impact by reducing staff turnover and increasing both the individuals and public’s perception of CEO competency. Changing them so soon after introduction suggests a lack of faith in the BPA process – something that is defi nitely not the case. Then there’s the fundamental of dealing in hard cash. Hopley frowns as he responds: ‘There is a misconception that apprentices are free. This is wrong; while there is the option to gain some government funding for training, apprenticeships should be offered to new people in new roles, so salaries will need to be accommodated in the increased head count. Anything else just becomes conversion, and while this helps hit a quota, it has no benefi t to the profession. Hopley nails his fl ag to the mast of quality training: ‘Apprenticeship programmes most defi nitely have a place in society, and where it’s an appropriate mechanism for skills development, we champion their use. However, there is not and will not be a CEO apprenticeship programme, purely because there is no need for one.’ It’s hard to disagree.
www.britishparking.co.uk
CEO qualifi cation involves up to a week of classroom-based learning, with the core practical knowledge then practised on the street. A CEO will be up to speed and fully competent within around 80 hours. To adopt the apprenticeship model would simply involve sticking bits of our existing schemes together to try and establish an unnecessary level of 280 hours of learning, and then giving it a different label, before converting existing CEOs onto a scheme. This would result in no improvement of competency and lead to lower wages being paid to those individuals performing exactly the same role as the one for which they were previously trained for. This goes against all the principles of apprenticeship schemes, as well as those of NSL, and fails to meet the two main fi ndings from the Richard Report.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48